Skip to main content

Full text of "The Lancashire Hollands"

See other formats

929.2 ^'^' 






3 1833 01322 9767 


' Herein may be seen noble chyvakye, curtoseye, 
humanitye, friendlynesse, hardynesse, love, frend- 
ship, cowardyse, murdre, hate, virtue, and synne. 
Doo after the good, and leve the evyl, and it shal 
brynge you to good fame and renommee.' 

William Caxton's preface to Sir Thomas 
Malory's ' Morte d' Arthur.' 

, /ii/iri/^ J/iiir.ilun .Jit'i/iiiut. (///i/7/iut/.>/JiLy^LMX'u/i^,ywui£i/c^af/t///fit/Jt/ni//jtJ 

/rf/rt It t/riif4-t/i<f ////////■ if/-rtf/ //u if tiff /'^'y^ 











The motto of the Knutsford branch of Hollands is ' Respice, 
Aspice, Prospice.' I have written this book primarily for the 
benefit of existing Hollands and those more numerous, I hope, 
as yet unborn, so that they may be the better able to practise 
the precept of ' Respice,' and may have some consecutive 
information as to the men and women who bore their name 
in times past. I do not agree with those people who, as a 
philosopher says, ' Nowadays attach much more importance 
to the pedigrees of domestic animals than to the pedigrees 
of men.' The book may also, I hope, be of interest to others 
who have a taste for history, public and private, or patriotic 
feeling for Lancashire. 

Except now and then, as this does not pretend to be a 
didactic history, I do not worry the reader's eye by detailed 
footnote references to the authorities, but I append a list 
of the chief sources of information, and I ask readers to 
credit me with not having stated any fact without some 
authority. In the period between the thirteenth century 
and the sixteenth, one has to depend mainly upon the old 
chroniclers, English and French ; for these centuries are 
sadly deficient in that written correspondence from which 
one learns so much of the character of men and women in 
later times. These chroniclers mostly give the mere outward 
show of things, and hardly before de Commines does one 
obtain any attempt to analyse character. They are also 
sometimes obviously inaccurate as to facts, and it is never 
clear how far they are poetically composing the words which 



they put into the mouths of their characters, or how far 
they are reporting on more or less trustworthy evidence. 
When two chroniclers narrate the same event, they usually 
give varying versions which are the despair of the modern 
conscientious historian. He has to use his judgment and 
make out the course of events which seems the most probable. 
At the same time, I feel sure, from internal evidence, that 
men like Froissart and de Wavrin did their best to ascertain 
what did happen, and greatly are we indebted to them for 
their trouble. As to facts of drier order, there is plenty 
of record in legal and administrative documents. The 
writer who deals with Lancashire, as is my fortune in respect 
to part of the story, has the advantage that no county 
provides such ample printed materials for local history. 
The great patriotism and modern wealth of Lancashire 
men has wrought this. In addition to Baines' older county 
history, there is the copious series of the Chetham Society 
publications, the distinct works of men like Booker and 
Croston, and, above all, the ' Victorian County History of 
Lancashire ' published within the last few years. This 
splendid monument of well-directed labour is, I should say, 
the best designed and most complete of all county histories, 
ancient and modern. It would have been impossible not 
many years ago to write the present book without far more 
time and original research than I could have afforded to give, 
although this book has cost me quite enough, and possibly 
too much, time and trouble, but books like the Victorian 
County History and, on national affairs, like those of Sir 
James Ramsay, Mr. Wylie, and others, men who have given 
all the spare time of their lives to mediaeval history, make 
things much easier now for the amateur historian. 

I have derived special advantage from Mr. James 
Croston's pedigree of the Hollands of Upholland in his 
admirable ' History of the Ancient Hall of Samlesbury,' 


published in 1871, and from the Upholland, Denton and 
Mobberley pedigrees in Mr. Wm. Fergusson Irvine's 
' History of the Family of Holland of Mobberley and Knuts- 
ford,' which appeared in 1902. Mr. Irvine's book was partly 
based upon materials collected by the late Edgar Swinton 
Holland, who seems to have meditated writing a general 
history of the family. 

I have entitled this book, ' The Lancashire Hollands.* 
Those of them who played a great part on the national stage 
for four generations, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 
lived mainly, it is true, in the South of England, but they 
were by origin pure bred Lancastrians, and other branches 
of the family lived in or near Lancashire till modern times, 
and some still live there. Therefore the Hollands, like many 
another vigorous clan, may salute the Red Rose County with 
' Salve, magna Parens.' 

I began to compose this book in hours of leisure before 
the great war broke out in August 1914, though I have 
finished it since. It would not have been easy to start upon 
a mere family history after the outbreak of volcanic events 
which make even great affairs in former history seem pale, 
and writing seem rather a shadowy occupation. 

The best justification of histories of this kind is that 
given by the wise Gibbon in his Autobiography. He says : 

' A lively desire of knowing and recording our ancestors 
so generally prevails that it must depend on the influence 
of some common principle in the minds of men. We seem 
to have lived in the persons of our forefathers ; it is the 
labour and reward of verity to extend the term of this ideal 
longevity. . . . The satirist may laugh, the philosopher may 
preach, but Reason herself will respect the prejudice and 
habits which have been consecrated by the experience of 

Bernard Holland. 

Habbledown, neab Canterbury. 




Hollands op Upholland 1 

Thomas Holland, Earl of Kent 25 


Thomas Holland, Second Eael of Kent, and Sir John 

Holland 45 

Sir John Holland in Spain 68 

Vicissitudes of Fortune 83 

The Holland Revolt 131 

Edmund Holland, Fourth Earl of Kent, and his Sisters 167 

John Holland, Second Duke of Exeter . . . 180 




Heney Holland, Third Duke of Exeter . . . 202 

Hollands of Sutton 237 

Hollands of Denton 269 

Hollands of Clifton and Cheshhib .... 285 

Hollands of Wales 304 

Hollands of Norfolk, &c 319 

Appendices ......... 333 

Index 349 



Henry Thtjiistan Holland, afterwards First Viscount 
Knittsford (behind) and his Younger Brother 
Francis James, afterwards Canon Holland of 
Canterbury (in front) .... Frontispiece 

From a drawing made about the year 1845. 

A Knight of the House of Holland in the Centre. A 

Kjstight of the House of Lancaster on the Right 6 

This drawing is in the Earleian MSS. Coll., 2129, fol. 218o. It was copied in 1640 
tro;>: painted glass then in the window of Warrington Church. 

Tomb of Edward Plantagenet, Prince of Wales, in 

Canterbury Cathedral ...... 38 

Reproduced from Sandford's ' Genealogical History of the Kings of England,' 1707. 

portratt of elizabeth, daughter of john, duke of 
Lancaster, and Wife of John Holland, Duke of 
Exeter, with her Second Husband, John Cornwell, 
Lord Fanhope 64 

Reproduced from a church window in Sandford's ' Genealogical History of the Kings of 
England,' 1707. 

Tomb of John Plantagenet, Duke of Lancaster, and 
his Wife in St. Paul's Cathedral, Destroyed in 
THE Fire of 1666 123 

Reproduced from SandforSs Oenealogicai History of the Kings of England,' 1707. y 

Tomb of Margaret Holland, Daughter of the Second 
Earl of Kent, with her two Husbands, John 
Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, and Thosias, Duke of 
Clarence, in Canterbury Cathedral . . .172 

Reproduced from Sandford's ' Genealogical History of the Kings of England,' 1707. 

Dartington Hall, near Totnes, Devonshire , ,182 

Seal of John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon and Duke 

of Exeter, as Lord High Admiral of England . 186 




Tomb of John Holland, Second Duke of Exetee, and 
HIS TWO Wives Lady Anne Stafford and Lady Anne 
MONTACUTE ........ 200 

Thomas Holland, S.J 252 

Enlarged and clarified photograph from the original miniature portrait at Lanheme 
Convent in Cornwall. 

Denton Hall, the Ancient Residence of the Denton 

Branch of the Holland Family .... 282 

Sm Henry Holland, Baronet, M.D. .... 296 

From a portrait made about 1840. 

Elizabeth Stevenson, Mrs. Gaskell, Daughter of 

Elizabeth Holland ...... 300 

From a miniature done in Edinburgh by James Thomson, just before she was married, 
in 1832. 

Arms and Inscription of Edward Holland in Conway 

Church 311 

From the monument in Conway Church, which also commemorates by inscriptions 
successively added three more generations of the family. 

Philemon Holland 322 

Enlarged from the portrait on the title-page of ' Cyrupaedia.' The original engraving 
is by William Marshall. 

Map showing Position of Places mentioned in Lancashire 

AND Cheshire ..... End of Appendices 



Hollands of Upholland xvi 

Hollands of Etjxton 15 

Hollands, Earls of Ejent and Huntingdon, &c. . . 24 

The Hollands and the Houses of Plantagenet and 
Lancaster, Mortemeb and York, Beaufort and 
Nevill 235, 236 

Hollands of Sutton 238 

Hollands of Denton and Heaton 268 

Hollands of Clifton 286 

Hollands of Mobberley 296 

Hollands of Sandlebredgb and Knutsford, Chbshibb . 298 

Hollands of Conway 304 

Hollands of Norfolk 318 

Hollands of Sussex 328 

Hollands of Liscard Vale, &o 334 

Hollands of Dumblbton, &o. 336 



















•3 » 

>- u 






tj^ M 


O T3 rfS • 

« g a ..K 

(MO So 




Memento dierum antiquorum ; 
Cogita generationes singulas. 

Canticle of Moses. 

* There has existed no family in Lancashire,' wrote a dis- 
tinguished antiquary of that county, Mr. Langton, ' whose 
career has been so remarkable as that of the Hollands. 
Playing an active part in the most picturesque and chivalrous 
period of English history, they figured among the founders 
of the Order of the Garter, allied themselves with the royal 
family, and attained the highest rank in the peerage.' 

The vicissitudes of their fortunes were great. If they 
rose to the heights they also tasted of the depths. Most of 
the chiefs of the race, from the time of Edward II to that of 
Edward IV, came to violent ends, as befitted an ambitious 
and fighting family in stormy English times, when politics 
was a game played with lives for stakes. 

The village of Upholland is about four miles west of 
Wigan. The place is now blackened by coal-mining, but 
must once have been a pleasant enough region. Not far 
off there is another village called Down-holland, where also 
a Holland family lived, from, at least, the reign of Henry II 
to that of Henry VIII, but they seem to have been uncon- 
nected with the Hollands of Upholland, and with them this 
book is not concerned. There was also a Lincolnshire family 


of Hollands, but unrelated to those of Lancashire.^ Down 
to the fifteenth century the name was always spelt Holand 
(or Holande), and its bearers were called John de Holand, 
Thomas de Holand, &c., but in this book the later spelling 
has, as a rule, been used throughout. 

The manor of Upholland appears in Domesday Book as 
' Holland,' and was in the possession of ' Steinulf ' in the 
days of Edward the Confessor. The Hollands appear in 
the reign of John as donors to Cockersand Abbey, but their 
name is first mentioned in connection with this manor in 
a ' final concord ' made at the Lancaster Assizes dated 
November 5, 1202.^ In this deed Uhctred de Chyrche 
releases his right in fourteen oxgangs of land in Upholland 
to Matthew de Holland. This would mean about 210 
acres of arable land together with rights of meadowing and 
pasturage, perhaps the manor as a whole, under this form. 
Two later deeds show that between 1212 and 1224 Matthew 
de Holland died and was succeeded by his son Robert. 
Robert de Holland was still alive in 1241. In that year he 
and his son Thurstan were in prison on the charge of having 
set fire to a house belonging to the Rector of Wigan and 
occupied by John Mansel. The Sheriff, however, was directed 
to release them on bail. Thurstan did not appear on the 
day appointed for trial, ' but Robert came and defended 
his whole action and put himself for good or evil upon the 
country, to wit, upon twelve knights above suspicion and 

^ The record of these Lincolnshire Hollands, who owned Estovening Manor in 
the parish of Swineshead, begins with an Otho Holland before the Conquest, and 
continued in that region down to the end of the sixteenth century. One of them. 
Sir Thomas Holland, temp. Henry VI, ' spent his life in the Holy Land and came 
home but every seventh year.' No wonder, for he was married to Elizabeth, 
daughter of Sir Piers Tempest, whom men called ' the D • vilish Dame.' One would 
like to know more about this couple, who would have been a good subject for an 
• Ligoldsby Legend.' 

* In the Cockersand Chartulary, published by tlie Chetham Society, are 
printed two deeds of grant of land in Upholland to the then new Abbey, 
one by Matthew de Holland, the second by his son Robert. 


four vills of the neighbourhood of Wigan.' A day was 
given him by the Justices at the next Assizes, and the Sheriff 
was directed in the meantime to ' let him have peace, and 
in no wise to trouble him or permit him to be troubled.' 
Thurstan appeared before the Justices on July 23, but no 
prosecutor attended the Court. The Justices asked Thurstan 
' how he would acquit himself concerning the fire if any one 
would speak against him,' and he too claimed trial by jury, 
and was given a day at the Assizes. It does not appear 
what further happened in this case. 

In 1242-3 Thurstan had probably succeeded to his father, 
for he represented the family in an inquiry then held to 
ascertain the knights' fees in that ' Hundred ' chargeable 
to the Gascon Scutage. Robert de Holland had other sons 
besides Thurstan : Adam, the ancestor of the Hollands of 
Euxton ; Richard, from whom came the Hollands of Sutton ; 
Matthew, Robert, Roger, and William. In 1268 Thurstan 
Holland, with his brothers Matthew, Richard, Robert and 
William, and Thurstan' s own son Robert, were all sum- 
moned to answer a charge of trespass. 

Thurstan de Holland first married the daughter of 
Adam de Kellet, through whom the Hollands acquired manors 
in north Lancashire, as Lonsdale, Furness, and Cartmel. 
By this wife he had five sons, Robert, William, Richard, 
Roger, Adam, and a daughter, Margaret. Thurstan next 
married Juliana, a daughter of John Gellibrand, and had 
four more sons, Thurstan, Adam, Elias, and Simon. He 
married thirdly a daughter of Henry de Hale, an illegitimate 
son of Richard de Meath, Lord of Hale. An old Norman- 
French petition from the ' loyal tenants of Hale ' states 
that as Henry de Hale lay dying ' came one Thurstan de 
Holland, who had married the daughter of the said Henry 
and as he lay at the point of death [come il launguist a 
la mort\ his memory lost, the said Thurstan took the said 


Henry's seal which he had round his neck, and made use 
of the seal to issue charters granting the said manor of 
Hale to himself, the said Thurstan, and Robert his son.' 
He had then put out some old tenants, and introduced 
new ones, which, perhaps, accounts for the allegation. 

This accusation may not have been true, but evidently 
Thurstan de Holland was one of those vigorous and not 
too scrupulous men who, by local efforts and marriages, 
found families. Thurstan lived long. He is described as 
' Sir Thurstan de Holland ' in witnessing a charter to 
Stanlaw Abbey in 1272. He signed it with a cross, and 
his seal showed three bulls' heads. 

Robert de Holland was the eldest son of Thurstan. 
William, another son of Thurstan, became Sir William 
de Holland, and he was ancestor of several Lancashire 
families, Hollands of Denton, Clifton, and their branches, 
a numerous posterity which, through descendants from the 
Clifton line, endures to the present day. 

Sir Thurstan de Holland's eldest son Robert is on the 
main line of the present history. He married Elizabeth, 
the youngest of three daughters and co-heiress of William 
de Samlesbury. This Robert received knighthood about 
the year 1281. His eldest son was also named Robert, 
and he had another son, William, and three daughters 
who married into Lancastrian families, Joan, Margery, and 
Ameria. William died before 1321, without issue. Joan 
married first Sir Edward Talbot of Bashall, and next 
Sir Hugh de Dutton, and lastly Sir John de Redcliffe. 
Margery married John la Warre, from whom descended 
the baronial families of West and de la Warre. Ameria 
married Adam, son of Sir John Ireland, knight, from 
whom also came a numerous posterity. 

Sir Robert de Holland, son of Robert and grandson of 
Thurstan, was a great man in his day, and first brought this 


energetic family of Upholland into the domain of national 
history. Beginning as a well-to-do Lancashire Squire, he 
owed his advance to his position in the household of that 
feudal lord of vast domains, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, 
grandson of King Henry III through that King's second 
son Edmund, and nephew of Edward I. Robert de Holland 
took part in the Scottish wars at the end of the reign of 
Edward I and the beginning of that of Edward II. In 
the first year of the latter reign he received from the Crown 
seven manors in Derbyshire. By this time he had become 
a leading ' Member of Society.' In 1307 he rode at a tourna- 
ment, held outside London, in the fields of Stepney, where 
he bore for arms ' azure, seme of fieurs de lys, a lion rampant 
guardant, argent,' and in the same year he obtained further 
territorial grants from the Crown. This was the first year 
of Edward II's unhappy reign. In the same year Robert 
de Holland obtained leave to fortify (' kernellare ') his man- 
sions of Holland in Lancashire and Bagsworth in Leicester- 
shire, and was appointed Chief Justice of Chester, with the 
charge of the royal castles of Chester, Rhudlaw, and Flint. 
In 1308 he made a great marriage with Maud, then aged 
twenty-four, younger daughter and co-heiress of Alan, 
Lord de la Zouche of Ashby de la Zouche in the county 
of Leicester, who was great grandson of King Henry II 
by the fair and frail Rosamond de Clifford. Maud de la 
Zouche, on her father's death, five years later, brought him 
several more manors in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and 
Hertfordshire. In the year of his marriage, Robert de Holland 
was summoned to appear at Newcastle-on-Tyne to repel the 
invading Scots, and two years later was appointed to super- 
intend military levies in the counties of Lancaster, Leicester, 
Stafford, and Derby He was summoned to Parliament in 
1314 and 1321 as ' Roberto de Holland, Baron Holland.' 
It has already been said that Robert de Holland owed 


his rise to Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, Leicester, and 
Derby, and cousin to the King. This great lord had 
given to his follower, who was his chief agent and adviser 
in Lancashire, a number of manors in Cheshire, Staffordshire, 
Yorkshire, and Buckinghamshire. 

Robert de Holland, perhaps in order to give his wife a 
title to dower, obtained a re-grant of his inherited territorial 
manors of Upholland and Hale upon new and interesting 
conditions. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, by charter, granted 
these two manors to him and to Maud his wife, to hold of 
the chief lord by the service of distributing each year for the 
said Earl's soul on St. Thomas the Martyr's Day and on 
Christmas Day to the poor folk on the manor of Upholland 
twenty heaped up measures of wheated flour, and ox, and 
swine, and calf's flesh to the value of £lO, and of providing 
a repast of two courses for 240 poor persons in the Hall of 
Upholland on the same feast, to be served on dishes after 
the manner of gentlefolk, and a repast of one course the 
following day, a pair of shoes or 4cZ. being given to each of 
the poor persons on departing. 

The gifts of land and mesne manors, both from the Crown 
and from his chief and patron, made Robert de Holland 
rich and powerful, and his marriage, besides bringing more 
manors, made him well connected ; but his fortune fell, as 
it had risen, with that of the Earl of Lancaster. 

Throughout English history, from the time, at any rate, 
of Henry III to that of George III, there has been a struggle, 
now and then volcanically breaking forth, between the King 
and his intimate advisers on the one side, and, on the other, 
the party of the territorial aristocracy who always tried to 
put the royal power in commission, and so rule themselves. 
The reign of Edward II, like those of Richard II and James 
II, was one of the explosive epochs in this struggle, and 
the Earl of Lancaster was at the head of the feudal party, 
in opposition to the Crown. 

■S!'fT"i~:?V*W»:5^ "" Tf 



This drawing is in the Harleian JISS. Coll., 2129, fol. 218a. It was copied in 1640 from painted glass 
then in the window o£ AVarrington Church. Baines says (' Hist. Lane' vol. iii. p. 672) : ' The surcoat of the 
tirst knight, representing a Banastre, was or, that of the second sable, pummel of his sword or, and blade 
argent. The arms on the pennon are those of Holland, and the third knight is probably Thomas, Earl of 
Lancaster ' 


Robert de Holland accompanied the Earl of Lancaster 
in the military operations which, in 1312, led to the over- 
throw of King Edward's favourite Piers Gaveston and his 
execution on Blacklow Hill near Warwick on July 1, 1312. 
But in 1315 broke out a rebellion against the Earl in his 
own county of Lancashire. This was led by Sir Adam de 
Banastre, chief of a numerous and powerful family, who 
had married Margaret Holland,^ the aunt of Sir Robert, 
now Lord Holland. This rising against their patron the 
Earl of Lancaster brought the loyal Hollands into violent 
collision with the rebel Banastres, notwithstanding the 
marriage alliance. ' The Hollands,' say the authors of 
the ' Victorian History of Lancashire,' ' were a numerous 
clan in south-west Lancashire ; their importance greatly 
increased with the rise of their chief ; and probably they 
presumed upon it.' The Banastre faction had some success 
at first, and plundered the houses of the Hollands and 
their friends, but they were happily routed in a pitched 
fight, banners flying, near Preston, on November 4, 1315. 
Sir William de Holland, Sir Robert's brother, captured Sir 
Thomas de Banastre, at Charnock, and at once beheaded 
him on Leyland Moor. Sir Adam was also afterwards 
caught and beheaded at Martinmas. 

After Gaveston's illegal execution, Sir Robert de Holland 
took the precaution to obtain a royal pardon for his share 
in that outrage. In 1321 (the year, by the way, that Dante 
died at Ravenna) he was ordered to abstain from attending 
the meeting of the so-called ' Good Peers ' whom Lancaster 
had illegally convened to meet in November. That Earl, 
who was so popular that after his death his admirers 
tried to get him canonised as a saint, was engaged 
in his attempt to oust the reigning favourites, the 

^ Adam de Banastre was Margaret's second husband. The Harrins^tons of 
Hornby and Wolfage descended from Katharine, daughter of Margaret by Sir 
Adam de Banastre. She married Sir John Harrington. 


Despensers, from the council of his cousin the King. 
In 1322 Robert, Lord Holland, was sent by him into 
Lancashire to raise a force there in aid of this enterprise, 
and, despite the King's prohibition expressly addressed to 
him, marched his levy to join the Earl. In the meantime, 
one of his younger brothers, Sir Richard de Holland, with 
another levy, tried to cross the Mersey at Runcorn into 
Cheshire to attack a royal force in that county, led by Sir 
Oliver de Ingham, but failed because all the boats had been 
withdrawn to the Cheshire side. This was in the middle 
of March 1322. The Earl of Lancaster, operating on the 
Trent, placed a body of foot soldiers at Burton, to keep the 
bridge, and to prevent the royal army, estimated at 30,000 
men, from crossing the river. He was out-manoeuvred by 
the King's army, which passed the Trent at Walton, lower 
down the river, and thereby turned the Earl's flank and 
compelled his retreat across the Dove. The retreat was 
accomplished in such haste that the Earl's army chest, 
containing 100,000 silver pieces, fell into the river, where 
it was discovered in the year 1831. The Earl retreated as 
far as Boroughbridge in Yorkshire, and was there defeated 
and captured on March 16. He was summarily tried and 
beheaded a few days later in his own Castle of Pontefract. 
According to one account Sir Robert de Holland was at 
this fight ; according to another he did not arrive in time. 
In any case he surrendered to the King immediately after 
the conflict, and escaped the penalty of death, but the 
whole of his great territorial possessions were confiscated 
by the Crown. 

After the fall of the great Earl, and of his agent Robert, 
Lord Holland, Lancashire sank for a space into anarchy. 
The men crushed by the Hollands seven years earlier raised 
their heads again. ' Banastre's old associate. Sir William 
Bradshaw, formed a confederacy with Thomas de Banastre 
and others against the Hollands, who united their forces 


under Sir Richard de Holland. They attacked each other 
whenever they met, besieged one another's houses, overawed 
courts of law, and kept a great part of the country practically 
in a state of war for more than a year.' ^ 

Signs of this wild state of things appear in the Court 
records. In 1324 Sir William de Bradeschagh (Bradshaw) 
accused Henry de Gylibrand of coming with Richard de 
Holland and Adam de Hindelaye on the Friday next before 
the Feast of St. John in the preceding year to Leyland with 
a hundred armed men, who attacked the complainant and 
carried off two of his horses. The troop then rode on to 
Preston, where Edward de Nevile and Gilbert Singleton, two 
of the King's Judges, were holding assizes, and so much 
terrified them by noise and clamour that they dared not 
proceed with business, nor did the complainant dare ' to 
defend his sentence in an assize of novel disseisin,'^ where- 
by he suffered damage to the extent of ten marks. In 
1330 the Prior of Lancaster complained that he had 
been seized and imprisoned by one of the Banastres and 
others. In 1334 Sir Richard de Holland laid a claim to a 
mill and two plough-lands at Aighton. The successful 
defence was (1) that there was only one plough-land at 
Aighton, (2) that the said Sir Richard had been convicted 
of felony. In the same year a man named Richard le 
Skimmer, parker or forest-keeper of Ightenhill, was prose- 
cuted at a County Court held at Wigan on the charge of 
having ridden with thirty armed men to Prescot Church on 
the Sunday after Barnabas' Day in 1330, four years before, 
and having dragged from the church Richard de Holland, 
Thomas de Hale, and John Walthew. He would have 
beheaded the last-named then and there, had not Walthew 

^ Victorian History of Lancashire, ii. 201. 

* Assize of Novel Disseisin. — An action to recover property of which a party 
had been disseised (dispossessed) after the last circuit of the judges. Abolished 
by 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27 (1833).— Wharton, Law Lexicon. 


claimed the refuge of the Church. This vigorous parker was 
probably inflamed by some outrageous raiding in pursuit of 
deer, since the forest laws about this time were freely violated 
in Lancashire, and this was one great cause of fighting. 

While affairs went thus rudely in Lancashire, Robert, 
Lord Holland, Chief of the family, languished for a while 
in successive prisons at Dover and York, until at last he 
was set free upon giving pledges of good behaviour. He 
must have been in poverty. In 1328, six years after Borough- 
bridge, in the second year of the reign of Edward III, the 
attainder of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, was reversed, and 
his estates were restored to his brother and heir, Henry, 
Earl of Lancaster. About the same time the new King, 
with the assent of Parliament, directed that the estates 
of those who had joined Earl Thomas against the Des- 
pensers and the late King should also be restored ; and, 
among others, it was ordered that the possessions of Robert 
de Holland should be redelivered into his hands. The Earl 
of Lancaster opposed this restitution, and Holland addressed 
a petition to the King in Council. On October 7, in the 
same year, Holland was killed by adherents of that Earl. 
According to Dugdale he had ' incurred much hatred from 
the people for dealing unfaithfully with his lord, who, out 
of his great affection, had raised him from nothing, so that, 
in 1328, being taken in a wood near Henley Park, toward 
Windsor, he was beheaded on the nones of October, and 
his head was sent to Henry, Earl of Lancaster, then at 
Waltham Cross, in Essex, by one Sir Thomas Wyther, a 
knight, and some other private friends.' 

The allegation seems to have been that Holland, in order 
to gain favour with the King and to save his estates and his 
life, had taken care not to arrive at Boroughbridge, with a 
strong division which he led, either at all, or, at least, until 
it was too late to avert defeat. If this be true — and it 


is all very doubtful — it is clear that he gained nothing from 
this infidelity but his life. He was imprisoned and involved 
in the ruin of his patron, and the estates of his kinsmen, 
John and Richard de Holland, were confiscated as well as 
his own. Mr. Croston says, in his book on Samlesbury 
Hall, that ' the charge of treachery had no foundation in 
truth, and was, in all probability, devised by the adherents 
of Earl Henry to secure his removal, and thereby prevent 
him from becoming repossessed of the manors which had 
been conferred upon him by Earl Thomas.' The dispatch 
of his head to Earl Henry has, however, an air of personal 
revenge which could hardly be entirely explained by a 
mere motive of interest. Eventually the patrimonial estates 
were restored to the family, but few, if any, of those granted 
by Earl Thomas were recovered. 

Sir Robert, Lord Holland, in the day of his wealth and 
greatness, was not forgetful of the Church. He founded, 
at Upholland, in connection with the church, a chapel of 
St. Thomas the Martyr, a collegiate foundation of a Dean 
and Chaplains, or secular Canons. It was not a success, 
as is shown by the recitals in a later deed of June 10, 1319, 
which was executed by Walter, Bishop of Coventry and 
Lichfield, with the consent of Robert de Holland. The 
deed says, in Latin, that ' the said Chaplains (capellani) who 
for a short time were in agreement, have long and rashly 
(temere) abandoned the said place, and thus the religion 
or devotion which it was hoped would there be exercised 
for ever is dissolved and has ceased. We, considering that 
the college there ordained has been dispersed, and seeing 
that the divine worship in that place has been frustrated, 
and desiring that, for the increase of religion and divine 
worship, the state of the said place should be reformed, 
and having inspected the unproductiveness and situation 
of the place, it appears to be more convenient that religious 


rather than secular men should abide there for ever.' 
Evidently the strength of the monastic rule was necessary 
to make religious men live in so sterile and remote a spot. 

The deed therefore substituted for the former foundation 
one of a Prior and twelve monks of the Order of St. Benedict, 
' nigrum habitum gerentes.' Thomas de Banastre was 
presented by Robert de Holland as first Prior. The only 
information about this priory is that John de Barnaby 
was Prior in 1350, when he and others were tried for a riot 
and were acquitted. The monks chanted their masses for 
more than two hundred years in remote Upholland, and 
then came Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell. At the 
dissolution, in 1534, the place was granted to John Holcroft. 
The gross income was then £61 3s. 4<d. and the net income 
£53 3s. 4d. The church was kept for a chapelry of Wigan, 
and still remains. A few fragments of wall mark the site 
of the other buildings. 

The Sir Robert Holland who founded this priory and 
was slain near Henley in 1328, left five sons and a daughter. 
The eldest son, also named Robert, was for a time engaged, 
like his brothers, in the French wars, and was summoned 
to Parliament as Baron Holland from February 25, 1342, 
to October 6, 1372. 

This second Sir Robert de Holland, Baron Holland, took 
part in 1347 in an affair which created a sensation at the 
time. He and several other Lancashire gentlemen assisted 
Sir Robert Dalton of that county to abduct with violence a 
wealthy widow, whom Dalton wished to marry. Her name 
was Margery, widow of a large landowner named Nicolas de 
la Beche, and she subsequently had been married to Gerard 
de risle. The Lancashire gentlemen carried her off by 
force from her manor house called Beaumes or Beams in 
Berkshire, close to Reading. In the affray the lady's uncle, 
Michael le Poyning, and another man were killed, and 


several were wounded. The crime was the more outrageous, 
and was severely prosecuted, because it was committed 
' within the verge of the marshalsea ' of the Duke of Clarence, 
the King's brother, who was acting as * keeper of the realm ' 
while the King was in France, and was just then residing 
at Reading. The arrest of Dalton, Holland, and the rest 
was at once ordered, and they fled to wild Lancashire with 
the lady. There some of them took refuge at Upholland 
Hall, the house settled for life on the Lady Maud Holland, 
Robert Holland's widowed mother. She thus became im- 
plicated in the proceedings, but pleaded that the house 
was empty and that she was ignorant of this harbouring. 
On the arrival of the King's writ at Upholland the abductors 
fled farther north. 

This crime of widow or heiress stealing was then very 
common. About the same time there was a famous case 
of the widow Lady de Boteler, who was carried off from 
her house in Lancashire with no more luggage, as she 
complained, than her ' smock and her kyrtle.' John of 
Gaunt issued a special proclamation in his duchy against 
lady- stealing, in which it was recited that the offence was 
more common in Lancashire than in any county, and that 
the ladies carried off were too apt to marry their ravishers. 
In that age, when land was wealth, a nobleman or gentle- 
man could only increase his estate in one of two ways — by 
marrying an heiress or widow, or by obtaining a share 
in confiscated possessions of unsuccessful traitors who 
had been attainted for treason. This necessity, vital to 
those who would be great, vitiated motives both in 
marriage and in politics, just as, later, the prospect 
of the plunder of the vast estates of the monasteries 
vitiated the religious motive of English and German 
reformers. In later times, although marriage was still the 
pleasantest and the best way of gaining or increasing wealth 


or power, the long wars and plunder of France opened out 
new avenues and careers to English gentlemen, and, after 
that, came successively distribution of the monastic lands, 
increasing sale of wool to the manufacturing towns of 
Flanders, opening of the new world, and capture of bullion 
by sea-rovers from the Spaniards, and, later still, develop- 
ment of the British Empire, and other modes of earned or 
unearned income. But before the middle of the fourteenth 
century the roads to wealth were scanty, and even less 
consistent than they now are with strict virtue. 

Lady Maud Holland, nee la Zouche, died in 1349, two 
years after the Beaumes affair, at the age of sixty-five, and 
the Manor of Upholland passed to her son Robert, second 
Lord Holland. He died at the age of sixty-one, in the year 
1373. His son, also named Robert, died before him, and 
Upholland and other estates passed to the last mentioned 
Robert's daughter Maud. This Maud de Holland, at the 
age of seventeen, married Sir John Lovell, K.G., after- 
wards Lord Lovell.^ The Manor of Upholland and other 
estates remained in that family until they were confiscated 
after the death of Francis, Viscount Lovell, one of 
Richard Ill's leading adherents, at the battle of Bosworth, 
in 1485. The manor was thereupon granted by Henry VII 
to the first Earl of Derby. On the death of the ninth 
Earl it passed to his daughter, Henrietta Maria, Countess 
of Ashburnham, who sold it in 1717 to Thomas Ashurst. 
His successor sold it to Sir Thomas Boothe, the ancestor 
of the Lords Skelmersdale. 

Such was the fate of the eldest line of the Hollands, and 

^ Some of the estates, e.?. the Manor of Torrisholme, passed to Maud's uncle, 
John Holland, and when he died in 1456, without issue, went to his distant cousin, 
Henry Holland, Duko of Exeter, as next heir. These must have been bound to 
go in tail male. This Sir John Lovell died in 1408. A long list of his manors 
in right of his wife Maud, daughter of Robert Holland, appear in the Inquisitio 
post mortem. Most of them were in Leicestershire, Oxfordshire, and Wiltshire. 


of their ancestral Manor of Upholland. Among other 
branches from that stem were (1) that derived from Sir 
Robert, Lord Holland's second son, Thomas, whence came 
the Earls of Kent and Dukes of Exeter ; (2) that 
derived from the said Sir Robert's younger brother William 
de Holland, whence came the Hollands of Denton, Clifton, 
&c. ; and (3) that derived from his great uncle, Richard de 
Holland, whence came the Hollands of Sutton. What is 
known of these lines will be stated in this book, but it is con- 
venient to mention here, and get rid of, another short-lived 
line, the Hollands of Euxton. 

The Hollands who owned the Manor of Euxton bore for 
their arms those of the race, azure seme with fleurs de lys, 
a lion rampant guardant, argent, over all a bandlet gules. 
They came from a younger brother of Thurstan de Holland, 
namely, Adam de Holland, who was in possession of the 
Manor of Euxton about 1250, apparently through marriage 
with an heiress of the great landed family of the Bussells. 
His eldest son was Robert, who married an heiress of the 
EUels. The pedigree of these Hollands of Euxton was as 
follows : 

Adam de Holland, = Christiana de Bussell. 
living 1269. | 

Robert de Holland, = Aline de Ell el. 
living 1306. I 

William de Holland, = Elizabeth, Grimbald de Holland, 

living 1323. I d. of 

I I 

Robert de Holland, = Joan, William de Holland. 

11 years old in 1323. | d. of 

Joan Holland = Sir William de Molyneux. 
Earls of Sefton. 


The first of the two Robert Hollands mentioned in this 
pedigree seems to have been rather a lawless character. 
In 1278 the Abbot of Leicester lodged a complaint that 
Robert de Holland of Euxton and others had seized his 
corn in the highway at Ellel, and in 1281 his own relative 
by marriage, William Bussel, complained that Robert de 
Holland had seized his cattle. His grandson, the second 
Robert, came to some violent end, since two men were 
pardoned in 1339 for their share in the death of Robert de 
Holland of Euxton. His daughter Joan became heiress, 
and carried the manor in marriage to Sir William de 
Molyneux of Sefton, a gentleman distinguished in the 
Edwardian Wars, the direct ancestor of the present Earls 
of Sefton. 

But the story of the main line of the Hollands of Up- 
holland must now be completed. Sir Robert, Lord Holland, 
he who was illegally beheaded near Henley-on-Thames, had, 
besides his eldest son Robert, four younger sons, Thomas, 
Otho, John, and Alan, and one daughter, Isabel de Holland.^ 
At his death in 1328 his eldest son was sixteen, so was born 
in 1312. Isabel became involved in the fortunes of a remark- 
able man, John, Earl de Warenne, and Earl also of Surrey 
and Sussex. He was born in 1286 and was the last of a very 
great Norman family, the heads of which had taken a leading 
part in the affairs of England since the Conquest. The first 
of them had married Gundred, a daughter of William the 
Conqueror. The last Earl had acted with Lancaster and 
his allies of the feudal aristocracy against Piers de Gaveston, 
but afterwards had gone over to the side of the Court. His 
alliance was valuable, for he had wide domains north of the 
Trent with Conisborough Castle in Yorkshire for his central 
stronghold, the ruins of which still rise above the Don, and 
also great possessions in the south. To him belonged the 

1 John is doubtful. He only appears in the pedigree of the Devonshire Hollands. 


towns and castles of Reigate in Surrey and Lewes in Sussex. 
In 1322 he acted against the Earl of Lancaster in Yorkshire, 
and was one of the peers who signed his death warrant at 

In addition to his landed wealth the Earl de Warenne, 
towards the end of his life, was enriched, if the frequently- 
incredible monk of St. Albans, Walsingham, is to be believed, 
by the discovery through the wizard doings of a Saracen 
physician of a great treasure hidden in the cave on his 
Bromfield estates in Herefordshire. This monk says in 
his Latin Chronicle : ' There came at that time a certain 
Saracen physician to the Earl de Warren, asking his leave 
to catch a certain Serpent in his Welsh estates, in a place 
called Bromfield. When, by incantations, he had caught 
the said Serpent, he declared that in a cavern, in a 
neighbouring place, where the Serpent had dwelt, there 
was a great treasure. Hearing which, some men of Hereford, 
by the advice of a certain Lombard, named Peter Picard, 
began to dig there, and finding that to be true which the 
Saracen had predicted, often met there at night, until, 
discovered by the servants of the Earl, they were taken and 
put in prison. The Earl, truly, made no small gain from 
this event.' 

John, Earl de Warenne in 1307, when he was twenty, 
married a French lady, Jeanne, daughter of the Count de 
Barre. Their life was unhappy ; they both sued for divorce, 
but the law of the Church presented difficulties, and at first, 
at any rate, the attempt was not successful. There is no 
evidence that it ever was. They lived separated, and Earl 
de Warenne pursued his wild career. On the Monday before 
Ascension Day, in the year 1317, a kinsman and retainer 
of his carried off Alice, the wife of Thomas, Earl of 
Lancaster, from a manor house at Canford in Dorsetshire 
and, ostentatiously, at the head of an armed escort, conveyed 


her to de Warenne at his castle of Reigate in Surrey.^ The 
lady was the heiress of the great Norman family of the 
de Lacys, and had brought to the House of Lancaster 
Pontefract Castle and wide domains in Yorkshire. ^ 

It was alleged that this ravishing was connived at by the 
Court who hated Thomas of Lancaster, and it was probably 
done with the consent of the Countess Alice, who was accused 
of a previous northern intrigue with de Warenne, when she 
was at Pontefract, and he in his hunting domain at Conis- 
borough. The act was an audacious challenge by de Warenne 
of the Earl of Lancaster, who was then at the height of his 
power, and it led to a short private war between the Earls 
of Lancaster and de Warenne in Yorkshire. For his evil 
living the Earl de Warenne was threatened with excom- 
munication by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and actually 
did incur a diocesan excommunication by the Bishop of 
Chichester, which caused an affray between his men and 
those of the Bishop.^ The Archbishop's proceedings were 
intended, it seems, to make the Earl break off his connection 
with Maud de Nerford, a lady of good family in Norfolk, 
who lived with him for many years, and bore him six illegiti- 

^ The monk, Walsingliam, gives an absurd and djeam-like description of what 
happened on the road near Farnham. His object evidently was still further to 
blacken the character of the Countess for the benefit of that popular hero, Thomas 
of Lancaster. 

2 Pontefract Castle was afterwards acquired by John of Gaunt, Duke of Lan- 
caster, through his marriage with Blanche, daughter of Henry, Earl of Lancaster. 
So it passed to his son King Henry IV. 

3 The diocesan excommunication of a great man for a great crime hap- 
pened now and then. In the early twelfth century, for instance, William Duke 
of Aqiiitaine carried off with violence the beautiful Viscountess de Chatelherault, 
and kept her immured in his castle at Poitiers. Peter, Bishop of Poitiers, 
thereon excommunicated him. The Duke, with sword drawn, came furiously 
into the cathedral while the Bishop was celebrating Mass, and commanded him 
to withdraw the interdict. Bishop Peter refused, and the Duke returned his 
shining blade into the scabbard, with the words, ' Je ne t'aimo pas assoz pour 
t'envoyer en Paradis.' 


mate children, John, Edward, WilHam, Joan, Katherine, 
and Isabel. In 1316 the Earl, in agreement with the King, 
made a deed of settlement of his lands north of the Trent, 
on himself for life, then on Maud de Nerford, if she survived 
him, for her life, with remainder to her sons by him and their 
heirs male, and in the event of the extinction of all these, 
then to the Crown. Maud died before the Earl. Her three 
sons survived him, but this settlement was set aside in favour 
of a new one which he made in 1346. Before this date Isabel 
de Holland was living with John, Earl de Warenne, as his 
recognised wife. His first wife, Jeanne de la Barre, was 
still, indeed, alive, for she survived him, and died in France 
in 1361. Perhaps the suit for divorce had, after all, been 
at last successful.^ In any case, Isabel was recognised in the 
deed of 1346, and in the Earl's will of 1347, as, at least 
virtually, his wife. In the will, written in France, he calls 
her 'ma compaigne.' This is an expression which was then 
sometimes used in French wills, for wife. So, for instance, 
John of Gaunt in his will, also written in French, speaks of 
his first two wives as ' Blanche et Constance, mes tres cheres 
compaignes.' On the other hand, both in the deed of 1346, 
and the will of 1347, Isabel is described by her own family 
name of ' Isabelle de Holande,' which would be unusual. 
On the whole the character and position of the fair Isabel 
must remain enigmatic. 

The indenture in 1346 shows that the Earl, then sixty, 
and only a year from his death, still contemplated the 
possibility of having by Isabel a child, who would be the 
legitimate heir of his estates. Dugdale gives this deed as 
follows : It was provided that, ' If God should please 
to send him an heir by Isabel de Holland, then his wife, 

1 Brayley, in his History of Surrey, says that the Earl did obtain the divorce. 
I know not on what authority. Dalla'oay, in his History of Sussex, denies it. 


should the said heir be male or female, it should be joined in 
marriage to some one of the blood royal unto whom the 
King should think fittest, so that the whole inheritance of 
the Earl with the name and arms of Warenne should be 
preserved by the blood royal in the blood of the said Earl. 
If he had no issue from the said Isabel, then his castles 
and lands should, after his death, remain to the King to be 
bestowed on one of his own sons on condition that the 
name, honour and arms of Warenne should be for ever 
maintained and kept.' 

This settlement, apparently, like that of 1316, applied 
to all his territories north of the Trent, but not to his 
southern possessions. As the Earl left no child by Isabel 
de Holland, the remainder over came into force, and, a few 
days after the Earl's death, King Edward III made an 
appointment by Letters Patent of these possessions in favour 
of his fifth son, Edmund de Langley, then six years old. 
Edmund was afterwards Duke of York, and this inheritance 
was the foundation of the wealth and power of the House 
of York, especially in Yorkshire, and so is of some importance 
in English history. 

In the following year the Earl de Warenne, then at Conis- 
borough Castle, made his will, dated June 23, 1347, an 
interesting document in many ways.^ He appointed as 
his executors the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lady Maud 
de Holland (the widow of Robert, Lord Holland), Sir Thomas 
Holland, her second son, and eight other persons. He gave 
instructions for the payment of his debts by the sale of 
sufficient live-stock, and gave legacies to the shrine of St. 
Thomas at Canterbury, and numerous other religious founda- 
tions. He left money legacies to his illegitimate children 
by Maud de Nerford, and to William, one of the sons, who 

^ The will of 1347 is given in Testamenta Eboriacensia — Surtees Society, i. 


was Prior of Horton in Kent, his translation in French of 
the Bible. He devised to Lady Maud Holland four horses 
(jumentz) from his stud farm (haras) in Sussex. To Sir 
Robert de Holland and Sir Otho de Holland he bequeathed 
various specified parts of the metal trappings of his charger, 
and he made a number of other legacies. To Isabel de 
Holland, ' ma compaigne,' he left a ruby ring, the plate and 
vestments of his chapel, and one-half of all his live-stock ; 
and, after payment of debts and legacies, he made her 
residuary legatee of his real and personal estate. This 
bequest did not carry the land and castles north of Trent, 
which had been settled by the deed of the preceding year, 
nor any lands elsewhere, which the Earl could not devise 
by will. Most of these, including the important Surrey 
Castle of Reigate, went to Richard Fitz Alan, the son of his 
sister Alice de Warenne, who had married the Earl of Arundel. 
Apparently any territorial benefits to Isabel were cancelled 
by a Royal Patent of December 12, 1347, seven months 
after the Earl's death. ^ 

This will shows that John, Earl de Warenne, was upon 
excellent terms with the Hollands, since the whole family, 
except John and Alan, appear in it either as legatees or 
executors, and, inasmuch as the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
the virtuous and aged Stratford, is an executor, it must be 
supposed that the union of Isabel Holland with the Earl 
was not disapproved by the Church, like that with Maud de 
Nerford. Since Isabel's eldest brother was born in 1312, 
she was probably about thirty, most enchanting age of 
woman, in 1347, when the Earl died at about twice her age. 
The sinful Earl, the beautiful Isabel, for she must have been 
beautiful to please a man like him, the Saracen physician, 
and other characters in the drama, would afford food for 
imagination to a weaver of historical romance. 

* See Dallaway's History of Western Sussex, ii. 130. 


John, last Earl de Warenne, and Surrey and Sussex, 
was buried, as in his will he desired, alone, under a raised 
tomb, near the High Altar, in the Abbey of Lewes. ' It 
is impossible,' says the modern historian of Sussex, ' from 
the remains of this distinguished edifice, to form any correct 
notion of its relative parts. The High Altar, before which 
so many of the noble family of De Warren reposed under 
splendid tombs, cannot be traced.' 

These devastations by our vandals of the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, are certainly an irreparable grief to 
the antiquary, and a cause of real regret to the lover 
of historical continuity. They call to remembrance the 
Elizabethan poet Webster's fine lines in his ' Duchess of 
Amalfi ' : 

I do love these ancient ruins ; 

We never tread upon them but we set 

Our foot upon some reverent history ; 

And, questionless, here, in this open court — 

Which now lies naked to the injuries 

Of stormy weather — some men lie interred, 

Loved the Church so well, and gave so largely to it. 

They thought it should have canopied their bones 

Till Domesday ; but all things have their end ; 

Churches and cities, which have diseases like to men. 

It is not recorded what subsequent adventures befell the 
fair and successful Isabel, daughter of Robert, Lord Holland, 
and sister to Robert, Thomas, Otho, John, and Alan. 
That which happened to the line of her eldest brother, and 
to the ancestral manor, already has been narrated. The 
eventful history of the most famous cadet branch of the 
Hollands of Upholland continues through her second brother, 
Thomas, who rose in the wars oversea, made a great 
marriage, and became Earl of Kent. 

The fortunes of this line will be narrated in the following 


chapters. Of the other brothers, Otho and, perhaps, Alan 
left no posterity. There is said by one authority to have 
been a fourth brother, John, who married a lady called 
Eleanor Medsted, and founded a family who in lineal 
male descent held the manor of Weare near Topsham in 
Devonshire until the middle or end of the seventeenth 


Sir Robert de Holland = Maud, d. of Alan, Lord de 

of Upholland, Lancashire, 
Lord Holland, illegally be- 
headed, October 1328. 

la Zouche. 

Sir Thomas de Holland, = Joan Plantagenet, = 2ndlyEdwardPrince 

K.G., 1st Earl of Kent ; 6. 
before 1320, d. 1360 ; second 
son. ^ 

Thomas Holland, 
K.G., 2Dd Earl of 
Kent ; b. 1350, d. 1397. 

d. of Edmund Earl 
of Kent, and grand- 
daughter of King 
Edward I. 

of Wales, son of 
King Edward III. 

King Richard IL 

Alice, d. of Fitz- 
Alan, Earl of 

John de Holland, = Elizabeth, d. 

K.G., Earl of Hunting- 
don and Duke of 
Exeter ; b. about 1352 ; 
illegally beheaded, 1400. 

of John of 
Gaunt, Duke 
of Lancaster. 

John Holland, 
K.G., 2nd Earl of 
Huntingdon and 
Duke of Exeter ; 
6. 1394, d. 1447. 

(1) Anne (2) Beatrice, (3) Anne, 

widow of illegitimate, d. of John 

Edmund d. of John I, de Monta 

Mortimer, King of Por 

Earl of tugal ; 

March; d. 1439. 

cute. Earl 
d. of Salis- 

Anne Holland = (1) John Lord 

(2) Sir John 

Thomas Holland, = Joan, d. of 
K.G., 3rd Earl of Ralph de 
Kent; b. 1376; Stafford. 
d.s.p., illegally 
beheaded, 1400. 

Edmund, K.G., = Lucia, d. of 
4th Earl of Kent ; Bernabo 
b. 1384 ; killed in Visconti of 
France, 1408 s.p. Milan. 

— Alianora = Roger Mortimer, Earl of March. 

Joan = (1) Edmund of Langley, Duke of 


(2) Sir William de WiUoughby, Lord 

(3) Henry Scrope, Earl of Masham. 

(4) Henry Bromflete, Lord de Vesci. 
— ^Margaret = (1) John de Beaufort, Earl of Som- 
erset son of John of Gaunt, 
Duke of Lancaster. 

(2) Thomas, Duke of Clarence, son 
of King Henry IV. 

Eleanor = Thomas de Montacute, 4th Earl of 

— Elizabeth = Sir John Nevill. 
— ^Bridget, became a nun at Barking. 

1 Sir Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent, also had two daughters ; 

Henry Holland, 
3rd Duke of 
Exeter ; b. 1430, 
d., probably 
murdered by 
Yorkists, 1475. 

Anne, d. of 
Richard Plan- 
tagenet, Duke 
of York, and 
sister of King 
Edward IV. 

Anne Holland, d. unmarried. 

nho married (1) Hugh, Lord Courtenay, (2) Waleran, Count of St. Pol 

Joan, who married John, Duke of Brittany, and Maud, 



' Quell the Scot,' exclaims the lance, 
' Bear me to the heart of France,' 
Is the longing of the shield — 
Tell thy name, thou trembling Field ! 
Field of death, where'er thou be 
Groan thou with our victory. 


Woman born to be controlled. 
Stoops to the forward and the bold, 

Walter Scott. 

Thomas Holland was born some time before 1320, and 
was a boy when his father came to his sudden and violent 
end. His first mihtary experience seems to have been upon 
Edward Ill's expedition to Flanders in 1340, undertaken 
to assist his brother-in-law of Hainault and the citizens 
of Ghent and the other Flemish cities against the French. 
This campaign opened with the English naval victory off 
Sluys, which was, according to Froissart, ' a murderous 
and horrible ' combat. After this Holland did some cam- 
paigning with the Spanish Christians against the Moors 
of Grenada, and with the Teutonic knights against the 
heathen in East Prussia. In 1342 he went with Sir John 
d'Artevelde to Bayonne, to defend the Gascon frontier. 
In 1344, together with his brother Otho, he was made one 
of the first members of the Order of the Garter. ' Forty 
knights,' says Froissart, ' were chosen, according to report 
esteemed the bravest in Christendom, who sealed and swore 



to maintain and keep the feast and ordinances which had 
been made.^ On St. George's Day the grand inaugural 
ceremony took place at Windsor. ' The King made great pre- 
parations, and there were earls, barons, ladies and damsels 
most nobly entertained. Many knights came to them 
from beyond sea, from Flanders, Hainault and Brabant, 
but not one from France.' 

Two years after this festival Thomas Holland went with 
the King, who was now claiming the French throne, into 
Normandy, and took part in the capture of Caen, now a 
flourishing and then, for those times, a populous and wealthy 
city, larger than any in England except London, and full 
of delicious plunder, says Froissart, * fine draperies, rich 
citizens, and noble dames and damsels.' Here Holland 
made a splendid prize. The story is best told by Froissart 
in one of his most vigorous battle pictures. The Caen 
townsmen, absolutely confident in their valour and numbers, 
insisted upon marching out to fight the English, contrary 
to the advice of the Constable of France, the Count of Eu, 
who represented the French King there. Froissart says : 

' So soon as these citizens of the town of Caen saw these 
English approach, who came on in three battalions, closely 
ranked, and perceived these banners and these pennons 

^ Froissart was wrong as to the number, forty. The first knights were twenty, 
six in number, and were listed in the following order : 

1. King Edward. 14. Sir Thomas Holland. 

2. Edward, Prince of Wales. 15. John, Lord Gray of Codmore. 

3. Henry, Earl of Lancaster. 16. Sir Richard Fitzsimon. 

4. Thomas, Earl of Warwick. 17. Sir Miles Stapleton. 
6. Piers, de Greilly, Capital de Buch. 18. Sir Thomas Wale. 

6. Ralph, Lord Stafford. 19. Sir Hugh Wrottesley. i 

7. William, Earl of Salisbury. 20. Sir Nele Loring. 

8. Roger, Earl of March. 21. Sir John Chandos. 

9. John, Lord Lisle. 22. Lord James Audley. 

10. Bartholomew, Lord Burgherst. 23. Sir Otho Holland. 

11. John, Lord Beauchamp. 24. Sir Henry Eam of Brabant. 

12. John, Lord Mohun of Dunster. 25. Sir Sanchio d'Ambeticourt. 

13. Hugh, Lord Courtenay. 26. Sir Walter Pareley. 


flap and fly in the wind in great plenty, and heard these 
soldiers shout, which they were not accustomed to see nor 
to hear, so frightened and discomfited were they that all 
those in the world never have kept them back from flight, 
so that one and all they retreated towards their town without 
order, did the Constable wish it or not. 

' Then could one see men shudder and be all dismayed, 
and this order of battle melt to nothing, for each man laboured 
to re-enter the town in safety. There was there great 
confusion, and many a man overturned and thrown on 
the ground, and they tumbled in heaps one on another, so 
scared were they. The Constable of France and the Count 
of Tancarville and other knights placed themselves on a 
gate at the foot of the draw-bridge,^ for they saw that since 
their men fled, there was no resource at all, for these English 
were already entered and came among them and slew them 
at pleasure without mercy. Some knights and squires and 
others, who knew the way towards the castle went in that 
direction, and Robert de Warignies took them all in, for 
the castle is strong and great and stands advantageously. 
Those were in safety who could get there. The English, 
men at arms and archers, who were chasing the flying made 
great slaughter, for they gave quarter to no one, whence 
it happened that the Constable of France and the Count 
of Tancarville, who were on this gate at the foot of the 
draw-bridge, looked up and down the street and saw such 
great pestilence and tribulation that it was hideous to 
consider and imagine, and they thought that they should 
fall on this side into the hands of archers who would not 
know who they were.^ While they looked down in great 
dread on these people slaying, they saw a gentleman, an 

^ I.e. at the drawn-up end. 

* And would consequently kill them, not knowing their great ransom value 
if alive. 


English knight, who had only one eye, who was called Sir 
Thomas Holland, and five or six good knights with him, 
which Sir Thomas they knew, for formerly they had seen 
him and been comrades with him in Granada and Prussia, 
and in other campaigns to which knights repair. So they 
were all comforted again when they saw him. So they 
called to him as he passed and said to him, " Sir Thomas, 
speak to us ! " When the knight heard himself named, he 
stopped short and asked, " Who are you, gentlemen, who 
know me ? " The said Lords named themselves and said, 
" We are such and such, come and speak to us here, and 
take us prisoners." When the said Sir Thomas Holland 
heard these words he was all joyous, both that he could 
save them, and for that he had, in taking them, a fine day's 
business, and a fine chance of good prisoners worth 100,000 
" moutons." ^ So he withdrew as soon as he could all his 
troop that way, and he and sixteen of those with him, dis- 
mounted and went up to the top of the gate and found 
the aforesaid Lords and quite twenty-five knights with 
them, who were not safe from the slaying which they saw 
in the streets, and all yielded themselves at once and without 
delay to the said Sir Thomas, who took them and pledged 
them his prisoners ; and then left enough of his men to 
guard them, and mounted his horse and went into the 
streets, and that day prevented many cruelties and horrible 
deeds which would have been done, if he had not stood in 
the way, of his charity and knightly kindness. With the 
said Sir Thomas Holland were many knights of England, 
who prevented much mischief from being done, and saved 
many a beautiful citizeness and many a cloistered lady.' 
Knights in these wars, when in good humour, sometimes 
did merciful acts of this kind, while the rank and file, as 

^ ' Moutons,' a French coin so called because it had a lamb stamped on it. 
It was equal in value to five English shillings of that period. 


many tales in Froissart show, assumed, where they could, 
full licence to plunder and ravish. On the other hand, 
no quarter was given on either side to the rank and file 
of the other, whereas gentlemen were, when possible, saved 
from death, partly on account of a comradeship feeling 
and partly on account of their ransom value. But the wars 
for the English claim to the French succession were cruelly 
waged, and, while happy England as usual remained 
untouched, unhappy France was burnt and plundered and 
devastated without mercy. 

Sir Thomas Holland sold the Constable of France to the 
King for 80,000 florins. The King afterwards, in England, 
committed the prisoner to the custody of Sir Otho Holland, 
the brother of Sir Thomas, Beltz, in his ' Memorials of 
the Order of the Garter,' says that the King delivered the 
Count of Eu ' by an indenture into the custody of Sir Otho 
Holand, under condition that the prisoner should not be 
admitted to leave England, or to bear arms publicly, until 
he should have paid his full ransom to the King.' It seems, 
notwithstanding, that Sir Otho took the Count with him 
to Calais, where he was seen at large and armed. Information 
thereof being given. Sir Otho was brought to the bar of 
the King's Bench before the Chancellor and other high 
personages, and, being unable to deny the charge, he put 
himself upon the King's favour, and was thereupon com- 
mitted to the custody of the marshal. 

After the taking of Caen, the English advanced to the 
gates of Paris, and burnt St. Germain, St. Cloud, Boulogne, 
and other villages in the environs. Then they marched 
north to the Beauvais country, plundering and burning 
as they went. The inhabitants of Poissy, having promised 
in the presence of the main army to pay a certain sum to 
save the town, then refused to pay it, and fell upon a small 
detachment which had been left behind to receive the ransom. 


These English defended themselves gallantly, and sent to 
the army for succour. When the Kentish Lord Reginald de 
Cobham and Sir Thomas Holland, who commanded the rear- 
guard, heard this, they ' cried out " Treason ! Treason ! " ' 
and returned to Poissy, where they found their countrymen 
still engaged with the townsmen. Almost all the inhabitants 
were then slain, the town was burnt, and the two castles 
razed to the ground, 

A few days after this act of military punishment, on 
Saturday, August 26, 1346, Thomas Holland took part in 
the glorious battle of Crecy. He was in the division, or 
battalion, commanded by the Prince of Wales, then sixteen 
years old, together with the Earls of Warwick and Oxford, 
Sir Godfrey de Harcourt, Lord Reginald de Cobham, Lord 
Stafford, Lord Mauley, Lord Delaware, Sir John Chandos, 
Lord Bartholomew Burgherst, Lord Robert Neville, Lord 
Thomas Clifford, Lord Bouchier, Lord Latimer, and others. 
The division consisted of about 800 men at arms, 2000 archers, 
and 1000 Welshmen. There were two other battalions. 
' They marched,' says Froissart, on the morning of the 
fight, ' in regular order to their ground, each lord under his 
own banner and pennon, and in the centre of his men.' The 
lion rampant, guardant, argent, on a field azure seme of 
fleurs de lys, which his father bore in the lists at Stepney, 
no doubt waved over Sir Thomas Holland. When the 
three divisions had been thus ranged in the early morning, 
they were visited by the King, riding on a small palfrey, 
with a white wand in his hand, and attended by his two 
marshals. He rode slowly through all the ranks, exhorting 
the men, ' to guard his honour and defend his right.' Then 
they ate a meal and heard a mass, and, in order to keep 
fresh, sat on the ground, placing their helmets and bows 
before them, and awaited the arrival of the French, who were 
coming in a disorderly manner by the road from Abbeville. 


The brunt of the battle, so strikingly narrated by Froissart, 
fell upon the Prince's division, for here alone the French, 
under the Count d'Alen9on, attacked in anything like regular 
order. Here there was hard fighting for a space. After 
this victory the siege of Calais began, and lasted almost a 
year. One day during the siege Sir Thomas Holland led a 
party of 2000 English out to forage. They were attacked 
by the French near St. Omer, and were driven in with the 
loss of 600 men. 

Sir Thomas Holland made a very great marriage which 
affected, for good or evil, all the subsequent fortunes of this 
branch of the family. Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of 
Kent, was a younger son of King Edward I, and brother of 
King Edward II. He was amiable and popular, but came 
to a disastrous end. England was, for a while, during the 
minority of Edward III, ruled by Queen Isabella his mother, 
and her favourite, the Lord Mortimer. Against their rule 
conspired and rose the Earl of Lancaster, that same Henry 
of Lancaster to whom Robert de Holland's head had been 
sent in a basket. For a few days the Earl of Kent, the King's 
uncle, joined Lancaster, but almost immediately abandoned 
him. This action of incipient revolt was not forgiven by 
the Queen and Mortimer. Their agents, it is said, made 
Kent believe a story that his brother Edward II, although 
apparently buried, was not really dead, but alive, and shut 
up in Corfe Castle. Kent wrote letters to his dead brother, 
and these natiu-ally came into the hands of the Government. 
They summoned a special, and packed, parliament to 
Winchester to try him ; he was convicted of high treason, 
and sentenced to death. He had to wait for four hours 
outside Winchester before anyone could be found who would 
take up the axe, and behead the uncle of the King. This 
happened in 1330, when Kent was twenty-nine years old. 
He left two sons and one daughter. The two sons were 


successively Earls of Kent, and died without issue. The 
second son, John, Earl of Kent, died December 27, 1352. 
Joan, the daughter, was two years old when her father lost 
his head. She grew up famous ' for her admirable beauty,' 
and men called her, after her father's title, the ' Fair Maid 
of Kent.' Her position was lofty, since she was a first cousin 
of Edward III, and, if her brothers died childless, the heir 
to great possessions. 

When she was about twelve years old, Joan entered into 
a contract of marriage with Sir Thomas Holland, who was 
then about twenty-five. Their union was consummated 
before, apparently, the marriage was properly solemnised. 
Afterwards, while Holland was in Prussia, warring to aid 
the Teutonic Order against heathen Wends and Letts, Joan 
entered into a new contract of marriage with the eldest son 
of William de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, who took her 
into his keeping, until his son should be old enough to com- 
plete the marriage. 1 Holland appealed to the Pope. A 
papal letter, dated May 3, 1347, was addressed from Rome 
to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops 
of London and Norwich, on the petition of Thomas de 
Holland, Knight, stating that his wife, Joan, daughter of 
Edmund, Earl of Kent, to whom he was married upwards 
of eight years ago, was afterwards given in marriage to 
William, son of William de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, 
during the absence from the realm of the said Thomas, then 
in Prussia, and that the said William, and Margaret, Joan's 
mother, opposed Thomas in recovering his conjugal rights. 
The cause was, at Holland's instance, brought before the 
Pope, and a suit of nullity of marriage against William 
and Margaret and Joan was ordered to be heard by Aymer, 

^ This Earl of Salisbury, the son, was born 1328, and succeeded to the title in 
1344. He died 1387. He would therefore have only been a boy of about thirteen 
when, as was alleged, he received Joan in marriage before 1344. 


Cardinal of St. Anastasia, but Joan was caused by William 
to be detained in England, and kept in custody. The Pope's 
letter directed that Joan should be set free, so that she might 
appoint a proctor and carry on the cause. Finally, Rome 
gave sentence in Sir Thomas Holland's favour, apparently 
on the ground that his was the earlier contract, and that 
its actual consummation had made it a virtual first marriage. ^ 
Salisbury released his claim and married another, and the 
high-born Beauty, now about twenty years old, became, 
whether with her will or against does not appear, fully 
Holland's wife, and she bore him children. Edward the 
Black Prince, her cousin, stood godfather to her eldest 
son, Thomas, afterwards second Earl of Kent of the 
Holland line. 

In 1353 both of Joan's brothers were dead, and then 
Sir Thomas Holland obtained from the Crown a grant of 
100 marks a year for life for the better support of this wife 
of the blood royal. Two years later possession was granted 
to him of the lands of her inheritance. Holland had been 
summoned several times to Parliament as a baron, under 
the title of Lord Holland, and, in 1360, a few months before 
his death, he was summoned under the title of Earl of Kent, 
which he had received, or assumed, in right of his wife. 

After Crecy, Sir Thomas Holland held various military 
and administrative posts. In 1354 he was Lieutenant of 
the King in Brittany, during the minority of the Duke, 
and disposed of all the revenues of the Duchy. In 1356 
he was Warden of the Channel Islands, and in 1359 he was 
appointed to be Captain and Lieutenant-Governor in Nor- 
mandy. In September 1360, he received the lofty title of 
Captain and Lieutenant in France and Normandy. This 

^ By the law of the Roman Chiirch a formal contract made a civil marriage. 
In Scotland this law continued after the Reformation, which is why runaway 
English couples went to Gretna Green. 



office, like his title of Earl of Kent, he enjoyed but for a 
brief space, for he died on December 30 in that year, then 
being between forty and fifty years old, and was buried at 
the Grey Friars' Abbey at Stamford. He died possessed 
of a number of manors in the counties of Kent, Surrey, 
Essex, Suffolk, Buckingham, Worcester, Stafford, Hert- 
ford, Northampton, Derby, and York, mainly his wife's 

Evidently this Thomas Holland was an able and trust- 
worthy man of action, and had the personal charm which 
is also so important to success. Froissart calls him ' un 
gentil chevalier,' and, elsewhere ' le bon chevalier.' Another 
old chronicler says that he was a vigorous soldier, ' miles 
strenuus.' The Chandos Herald poetically styles him : 

Le bon Thomas de Holland 
Qui en lui eut proesse grand. 

Still, the social world must have deemed Joan of Kent's 
marriage with Holland a bad misalliance for a grand- 
daughter of King Edward I, and first cousin of King 
Edward III. Holland certainly did not belong to the 
old feudal nobility, but only to a Lancashire Squire family, 
which had recently produced one distinguished, but un- 
popular man, Robert de Holland, who had come to a dis- 
astrous end. At her husband's death, Joan, Countess of 
Kent, was about thirty-three, and now perhaps in fullest 
ripeness of her glorious beauty. Not long afterwards she 
married her cousin, Edward Prince of Wales, who was 
then about thirty years old. They were within the pro- 
hibited degrees and therefore a dispensation had to be 
obtained from Rome. It was given on condition that the 
Prince founded a Chantry, which he did, in the crypt of 
Canterbury Cathedral. But how was it that the heir to 
the great throne of England had remained so long unmarried 



in those days of early marriages, notwithstanding that 
various high alHances had been discussed ? Some have 
said that, since he was a boy, the Black Prince had been 
passionately attached to this beautiful cousin of his, and 
that he had wished to marry her even before she married 
Thomas Holland, but was prevented by the dislike of his 
parents to the match. Certainly when the Prince returned 
from Poitiers, a hero of twenty-five, leading with high 
chivalry the French King captive, a beautiful woman at 
the passionate age of twenty-eight, playing her part amidst 
the magnificent festivities of Windsor, may well have found 
such a cousin irresistible. 

Froissart, according to the Amiens MS., says that the 
Prince, before leaving for his Government of Aquitaine, 
in 1362, lived at his house at Berkhampstead with ' Madame 
la Princesse sa femme, qu'il avoit par amour prise a epouse 
et a compaigne de sa voile nte sans le sceu du roy son pere. 
En avant la ditte dame etait mariee a ce bon chevalier 
monsigneur Thummas de Holland de qui elle avoit des 
biaus enfans.' 

Froissart was an excellent authority, for he was in England 
at this time. But he must mean, not that the marriage 
ceremony was secret, but that the Prince had engaged 
himself to marry Joan without his father's previous know- 
ledge. An excellent seventeenth-century English historian* 
who laboured hard at original sources of history,^ says that 
in the year 1361, the object of the Prince of Wales' affection 
was ' that incomparable paragon of beauty the Lady Joan, 
commonly called the Fair Countess of Kent, at this time 
a widow, and yet neither in age much unequal to this great 
Prince, nor in virtue, or nobility, though a subject, un- 
worthy of him. She was now in the thirty -third year of 

^ Joshua Barnes's History of Edward III and the Black Prince, printed at 
Cambridge, 1688, one of the most spirited histories of this period. 


her age and the Prince in the thirty-first of his, he being 
great grandchild of King Edward the First, and she grand- 
child to the said King by a second venture, he, the glory 
of his sex for military performances and other princely 
virtues, and she the flower of hers, for a discreet honorable 
mind sweetened with all the delicacies of a most surprising 
beauty. However 'tis said i the Prince only intended at 
first to incline her to the love of a certain knight, a servant 
of his, whom he designed to advance thereby ; but that 
after certain denials with which he would not be put off, 
she told him plainly "how when she was under ward she 
had been disposed of by others ; but that now, being at 
years of discretion and mistress of her own actions, she 
would not cast herself beneath her rank ; bvit remembered 
that she was of the blood royal of England, and therefore 
resolved never to marry again but to a Prince for quality 
and virtue like himself." ' 

What woman's son could resist such woman's wooing ? 
The Black Prince did not resist the kindred Plantagenet 
Beauty, obtained his father's consent, and the marriage 
was celebrated with solemnity and splendour at Windsor 
on October 16, 1361.2 

The Duchy of Aquitaine had been secured to the English 
Crown by the Treaty of Bretigny made with France in 
1360. It was granted on feudal tenure, by Edward III to 

^ Said by John Hardyng (the early fifteenth- century chronicler) more concisely. 
The gallant conversation in the text rests, alas, on slender evidence. 

* Bernard Burke in his Royal Descents quotes a curious certificate given to the 
Prince by Simon, Archbishop of Canterbury, dated October 9, 1361. (Harleian 
MS. 6148.) In this allusion is made to the Bull of Pope Innocent granting a 
dispensation for the Prince's marriage he being within the prohibited degrees of 
kindred and as being the godfather of Joan's eldest son, 'whereupon many 
scandals may arise.' Item, ' she was afore contracted to Thomas Montacute, Earl of 
Salisbury, after to Thomas Holland, knight, betwixt whom grew strife in that 
cause before the Pope's Court, but judgment was given against the Earl, and she 
remained wife to the knight, and the Earl, therewith content, married another 
lady at Lambeth.' 


his son, the Prince of Wales, by a Charter dated July 19, 
1362, together with the title of Prince of Aquitaine. The 
Prince and Princess left England for their new principality 
at the beginning of February 1363. Immediately after 
Christmas, the good Queen Philippa, together with King 
Edward III and other princes of the royal family, had made 
a visit of five days to them at Berkhampstead, so that if 
the marriage had been against her own inclinations this 
admirable lady seems to have forgiven it. John Froissart 
came to Berkhampstead on this occasion in the Queen's 
retinue. He heard there an old knight, conversing with 
the ladies, say that in a certain ancient book it was pre- 
dicted that the Prince of Wales would never be King of 
England, but the realm and crown should pass to the House 
of Lancaster. 

The Queen was, no doubt, kind to the Holland children 
whom she found at Berkhampstead, two boys and two 
girls of remarkable beauty all under thirteen or fourteen 
years of age. Froissart, too, must have known these children 
well, and encouraged them with tales of chivalry and love. 

Joan lived with the Prince until his death on Trinity 
Sunday, June 8, 1376, and she did the honours of his gay 
and splendid court at Bordeaux and Angouleme. She bore 
him two sons, Edward the eldest, born at Angouleme, 
February 1365, who died when he was seven, and Richard, 
born at Bordeaux in the year 1367, who became King 
Richard II. At the deposition of Richard, 1399, Henry of 
Lancaster alleged that Richard was not really the son of 
Edward Prince of Wales. He said that he himself had 
heard from several knights, who were at the Court of 
Bordeaux, that the Prince was uneasy about his wife's con- 
duct, and that having for some years had no child by the 
Prince, she was anxious to have one because she knew that 
the King of England was vexed that she, who had given two 


sons to Sir Thomas Holland, had as yet given none to the 
Prince of Wales. The great unlikeness of Richard in every 
respect to his father was said also to be proof of this, but 
this is a weak argument. He was no more unlike than was 
the weak and gentle Henry VI to his undoubted and heroic 
sire. A slight mist of doubt, perhaps, hangs over the life of 
the Beauty of Kent, but Henry's accusation was, in all pro- 
bability, quite untrue, and certainly to make it was more 
politic than chivalrous, since his cousin Joan was dead and 
could not reply or deny.^ 

That admirable author, so deeply versed in mediaeval 
history and sentiment, Kenelm Digby, in his book, the 
' Broadstone of Honour,' calls the Princess ' wise and 
excellent.' He is following a French chronicler, in relating 
how ' when Pedro the Cruel of Castile, upon flying to Angou- 
leme, had prevailed upon the Prince of Wales to defend his 
cause, having presented him with a superb golden table, 
the Prince ordered that the present should be shown to the 
Princess, who was at the same time informed of his resolution 
in favour of the war. This ' wise and excellent woman ' 
says Digby, lamented in bitter terms the decision of the 
Prince, and exclaimed that she heartily wished that the 
t able had never been presented, and that the wicked Pedro 
had never set foot in their Court. ^ When the words of the 
Princess were related to the Prince, ' I see well,' said he, 
' that she wishes that I should be always by her side, and 

^ Lord Bacon in his Historical Discourse ascribes a ' light inconstancy ' to Joan 
Plantagenet, of which he says ' a tincture ' reappears in her son, Richard II • 
There is not much ground for attributing inconstancy to Joan more than to 
other beautiful women. How can they be entirely constant ? 

^ The golden table was at a later date sold by the Prince to Fitz-Alan of Arundel, 
then Bishop of Ely, for only 300 marks, and the Bishop left it by will to his episcopal 
successors, but, says an old historian, ' Time, Avarice, or Sacrilege, or some other 
Accident, have devoured the very table itself,' which is a pity. The chronicler 
calls it ' a wonderful, sumptuous and costly table, adorned with gold and precious 


Reproduced from Saadford's ' aeaealogical History of the Kings o£ England,' 1707 


never leave her chamber ; but a Prince must be ready to 
win worship and to expose himself to all kinds of dangers, 
comme firent autrefois Roland, Olivier, Ogier, les quatres 
fills Aimon, Charlemagne, le Grand Leon de Bourges, Jean de 
Tournant, Lancelot, Tristan, Alexandre, Artus et Godefroy, 
dont tous les romans racontent le courage, la valeur, et 
I'intrepidite toute martiale et toute heroique ; et par St. 
Georges, je rendray Espagne en droit heritier.' 

This story calls up a vision rather of too fond a wife than 
of the flirting and faithless princess solemnly suggested by 
Henry IV to Parliament. The Prince did not venture to 
consult his beautiful Princess until after he had made his 
decision, for he knew too well what, notwithstanding the 
table, she would think of Pedro. 

The exact words of the Prince's splendid tirade, of which 
Don Quixote would have highly approved, are, alas ! probably 
the work of a romantic imagination ; but, according to the 
more exact Froissart, some of the Black Prince's men 
counsellors advised him not to espouse the cause of Pedro, 
a cruel tyranl, hated and just expelled by all classes of his 
people, and whose opinions and actions were, says Froissart, 
* durement rebelles a tous commandements de I'Eglise.' 
The Prince said, in reply, that he knew of Pedro's crimes, 
but that, if a bastard were elected to dethrone a legitimate 
brother, it would imperil * I'estat royal.' He warned Pedro, 
however, that, if he replaced him on his throne, he should 
expect him hereafter to reform his ways. No doubt, as 
Froissart says, the Prince then at the height of his masculine 
vigour, was really impelled by the desire for adventure and 
glory. He was inspired by the romantic literature of the 
age, just as modern Princes may be inspired to war by 
scientific theories as to race, survival of the fittest, and so 
forth. The Father Possevih, a learned Jesuit of the sixteenth 
century, used to complain that for the last five hundred years 


the Princes of Europe had been infatuated by romances. 
Men in those days, as now, took trouble to find just causes 
for war, but they beUeved in their hearts that a good war 
was its own justification. All this happened in the autumn 
of 1366. 

Thomas Holland, first Earl of Kent, had by his wife 
Joan Plantagenet two sons, Thomas and John, and two 
daughters, Joan and Maud. These two Holland girls were 
young stars shining in the last and most glorious years of 
that mediseval England which seemed to come to an end 
with the deaths of Edward III and the Black Prince. The 
younger, Maud, was married about the year 1365, when she 
was not more than ten, to the Earl of Devon's eldest son, 
Hugh, Lord Courtenay, who was four or five years older. 
He was grandson to the Earl of Devon who married Margaret 
de Bohun ; their finely carved effigies are still to be seen 
at Exeter Cathedral. In 1367 this boy Hugh, together with 
Maud's brother Thomas, second Earl of Kent, and others, was 
knighted by the Black Prince before the battle of Vittoria 
when the army was arrayed for battle. Hugh Courtenay 
died young, in 1373, and Maud was left a widow at about 

Waleran of Luxembourg, Count of St. Pol, and Lord of 
rich possessions in Picardy, was born in 1355, succeeded to 
his father's title in 1371, and in the year 1375 was taken 
prisoner by the English near Calais, and detained as a prisoner 
in England until he could raise a huge ransom. Here he 
fell in love with the ravishing beauty of the young widow 
Maud Holland. Froissart relates how the young Earl was 
kept prisoner for long ' in the fair castle of Windsor ; and 
he had so courteous a keeper, that he might go and sport 
and fly his birds between Windsor and Westminster ; he 
was trusted on his faith. The same season, the Princess, 
mother of King Richard, lay at Windsor, and her daughter 


with her, my Lady Maud, the fairest lady in all England ; 
the Earl of St. Pol and this young lady were in true amours 
together, each of other ; and sometimes they met together 
at dancing and carolling and other disports, till at last it 
was spied. And then the lady discovered to her mother 
how she loved ardently the young Earl of St. Pol ; then there 
was a marriage spoken of between the Earl and Lady Maud ; 
and so the Earl was set to his ransom to pay some six score 
thousand francs, so that when he married the Lady Maud, 
then he was to be abated three score thousand and the other 
three score thousand to pay. And when this covenant of 
marrying was made between the Earl and the Lady, the King 
of England suffered him to repass the sea to fetch his ransom, 
on his only promise to return again a year after.' The King 
of France detained St. Pol in prison a long time on some 
charge, but he at last got free and then came back with his 
ransom to England and married Lady Maud, and they went 
to live at the castle of Ham on the river Eure, which was 
lent to them by St. Pol's brother-in-law the Sire de Moriaume, 
till the French King's wrath should abate. 

The eighteenth-century historian of France, Pere Daniel, 
says politely of Maud the Fair, that she was ' une des plus 
belles personnes de I'Europe,' and of Waleran that ' c'etait 
un seigneur bien fait, adroit a tous les exercises du corps, 
enjoue dans la conversation, et qui par tous les beaux en- 
droits merita de plaire beaucoup a cette princesse.' The 
date of the marriage seems to have been somewhere about 
1380. Waleran and Maud would each have been twenty- 
five or thereabouts. Froissart, a'great connoisseur of appear- 
ances, must have known both of them well, for he lived 
in their country near Valenciennes and was working there 
at his history for about ten or twelve years after 1374, so 
that his evidence as to Maud's beauty is good. 

The Count of St. Pol survived his wife and lived till 1417, 


marrying secondly a daughter of the Duke de Barre. In 
later years he became violent and cruel, and in one campaign 
against insurgents in 1391, burned down a hundred and 
twenty villages in Luxembourg. He had no son by Maud 
the Fair, only one daughter who, like the Princess, her 
grandmother, was named Jeanne. This valuable heiress, 
for there were no children by the second marriage, was 
m.arried in 1402 to Antoine, second son of the Duke of 
Burgundy, ' laquelle feste,' says Monstrelet, ' fut moult 
notable, et y cut plusieurs princes et princesses avec tres 
noble chevelerie.' This marriage united the great St. Pol 
possessions to the House of Burgundy. On the death of 
his father, Antoine became Duke of Brabant. In 1407, 
on the death of his mother, heiress of the Counts of Flanders, 
the Duke of Brabant became Seigneur of the Flemish cities. 
Antoine was killed at Agincourt, and when, in 1430, his 
son, Duke Philip of Brabant died without leaving issue* 
the whole of the St. Pol, Brabant, and Flemish possessions 
went to swell the greatness of the main or elder line of the 
Dukes of Burgundy. Thus Waleran de St. Pol and his 
Countess, Maud, are links in history, for round the rich 
Burgundian inheritance turned many a later war. 

Maud Holland's form and beauty, like that of her brother 
Lord Huntingdon, came no doubt from her maternal Plan- 
tagenet ancestry, rather than from the Lancastrian squires 
of her paternal line. The tombs at Westminster Abbey, 
and that of the Black Prince at Canterbury, studied com- 
paratively, show that the beauty of the later Plantagenets 
was mainly derived from the wife of Edward I, Eleanor of 
Castile. Richard II is certainly a singular departure from 
the type, seeing that both his parents were Plantagenets. 
He has not the straight, or delicately aquiline, nose, the 
finely moulded cheeks, and the small well-chiselled head. 
But then neither, according to the monument at Canterbury, 
had his cousin Henry IV, also a Plantagenet on both sides, 


who dethroned him. Had it not been for the reformers of 
religion we should have had the exact likenesses of Thomas 
Holland, the first Earl of Kent, and of his wife Joan Plan- 
tagenet, from their monument in the Grey Friars at Stam- 
ford. As it is, we only have a full carved face surrounded 
by luxuriant hair, embossed on the vault of the Black Prince's 
Chantry at Canterbury, which is believed to represent the 
Fair Maid of Kent. There are no special praises of the 
beauty of Joan, elder sister of Maud, and perhaps she was 
more of a Holland. This Lady Joan, in her girlhood, adorned 
the Court of her step-father the Black Prince at Bordeaux, 
and was married very young in 1366 to John de Montfort, 
Duke of Brittany, who had previously been married to Mary, 
a daughter of King Edward III. 

' The nuptials,' says Froissart, ' were celebrated with 
great pomp and magnificence in the good city of Nantes.' 
It was a fine marriage for Joan, but not a happy one. ' Duke 
John,' says a French historian, ' was a politic and war-like 
prince, but his great qualities were tarnished by his pride, 
cruelty and bad faith,' and he lived in perpetual turmoil. 
The battle of Auray, in 1364, where his rival Charles de 
Blois, supported by the French, was killed, made John 
m.aster of the whole duchy, but in 1372 he was driven out 
for a while. In 1381 he allied himself with Charles VI 
of France, and so quarrelled with his previous English allies, 
who had to leave Brittany, but kept possession of Brest, 
and also detained from him his wife who was in England. 
In that year she was living at Byfleetin Surrey (spelt Byflete 
in old chronicles). Here, in the pleasant meadows by the 
River Wey, was a manor house belonging to the Crown 
where now stands the present manor house, portions of 
which are very ancient. The old house now belongs to 
Mrs. Rutson, whose mother was a Holland. John, Duke of 
Brittany, with the permission of his sovereign the French 
King, sent envoys to Richard II to ask, among other 


things, that his Duchess, the King's half-sister, should 
return to him. 

Richard referred the matter to his council, who directed 
Bazvalen, the chief envoy, to repair to Byflete and convey 
to the Duchess the request of his master. The Duchess 
expressed her willingness to obey, and to depart for Brittany 
immediately, if the King and the Princess of Wales, her 
mother, would permit. Bazvalen then visited the Princess 
at Wallingford-on-Thames, and obtained her consent, and 
then the King allowed the departure of his sister. It was 
this same Bazvalen, a wise counsellor, who, a few years 
later, saved the life of Sir Olivier de Clisson, and the honour 
of his own master, in that dark affair in the Breton Castle 
of L'Hermine. The Duchess of Brittany died in 1386, and 
the Duke who married again, at the end of 1399. 

This story must now pursue the adventures of the two 
brothers of Joan, Duchess of Brittany, and Maud, Countess 
of St. Pol — namely, Thomas Holland, second Earl of Kent, 
and John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon and finally Duke of 
Exeter. These two were, in 1360, the only living male 
descendants, save for their eldest uncle Robert and his son, 
of their grandfather Sir Robert, Lord Holland of Upholland 
in Lancashire. Alan Holland, one of their uncles, had died, 
according to some authorities, without leaving children, and 
the other uncle. Sir Otho Holland, K.G., had died on 
September 3, 1359, a few months before their father. He 
certainly left no children, and his estates went, under 
different entails, to his brothers Robert and Thomas. 
Otho had not been very fortunate. Some years after 
his trouble about the Count d'Eu, he accompanied his 
brother Thomas on a campaign in France in 1355, and was 
made prisoner together with Sir Thomas Beaumont in an 
action near Grandserre, in Dauphiny. He was ransomed, 
and was Governor of the Channel Islands in 1359, and died 
that autumn in Normandy. 



Of human greatness are but pleasing dreams 
And shadows soon decaying ; on the stage 
Of my mortality, my youth hath acted 
Some scenes of vanity, drawn out at length 
By varied pleasures, sweetened with mixture. 
But tragical in issue. 

Ford — Broken Heart. 

Thomas Holland, second Earl of Kent, was ten years 
old when his father died at the end of 1360. His brother 
John was a year or two younger. Men began life early in 
those days. At the age of about thirteen, Thomas was 
married to Alice Fitzalan, the daughter of Richard, Earl 
of Arundel, one of the old Norman-sprung nobility, and 
of his wife Maud, who was second daughter of Henry, 
Earl of Lancaster, and so descended from King Henry III. 
Young Thomas Holland went to France in the train of 
his step-father, the Black Prince. In 1366, when he was 
sixteen, he went with the Prince's army into Spain in the 
attempt to overthrow Enrique, who had usurped Don 
Pedro's throne, and he received knighthood at his hands, 
under the walls of Vittoria, on March 18, ' after the trumpets 
had sounded for marshalling the host.' 

An English historian of the seventeenth century says 
that the Prince's army arranged themselves in the pre- 
ordained order ' in a moment,' at the sound of the trumpets, 



* they were all so practised and expert in war. Surely it 
was a gallant sight to behold the brightness of their arms, 
to observe the stateliness of their barbed horses, to view 
the rich banners and streamers embroidered and beaten 
with arms, both in colours and metal, and waving with a 
delightful terror in the wind.' 

The sun of Spain never shone upon array more beautiful, 
for it was a great army, and the chivalry of England and 
Aquitaine were there. The Prince of Wales was in the 
centre, on one wing was the King of Majorca, another was 
commanded by the Duke of Lancaster, then twenty-seven, 
with the great Captain, Sir John Chandos, as the Chief of 
his Staff. Three hundred young men were made knights 
on the field. The Black Prince knighted Don Pedro, his 
stepson, young Thomas Holland, the three sons of the Earl 
of Devon, Hugh, Philip, and Denis Courtenay, of whom 
the eldest, Hugh, was already married to Maud Holland, 
the lovely child-sister of Thomas Holland. He knighted 
also William de Molyneux of that Lancashire family and 
other youths. Others were knighted by the Duke of Lan- 
caster, Chandos, and other chief leaders. An English victory 
at Vittoria was, however, to be deferred till a later age. 
Neither side were anxious to fight as both were awaiting 
reinforcements, and though there were some sharp en- 
counters, the decisive battle did not take place for about 
three weeks, and was then fought on April 3, upon the plain 
of Najara. It was a grand fight, greater than that of Poitiers, 
between two great armies. The Castilians, with their 
French allies had the larger numbers ; they counted, it 
is said, a hundred thousand men, but the Prince's force was 
much better trained and disciplined and won by superior 
arrow-fire and tactics. Spanish slingers were no match 
for English bowmen. The victory was decisive and the 
loss of the English- Gascon force was small compared 


with that of the foe. Thomas Holland is mentioned as 
fighting this day close to his step-father the Black Prince. 

In 1373 the young Earl of Kent was in the army with 
which John, Duke of Lancaster, marched right through 
France from Calais to Bordeaux, dreadfully ravaging on 
the way the Somme Valley and all the country round Noyon 
and Laon, and Soissons and Rheims, and the region of 
the Loire, ' killing and ransoming the people, wasting the 
country and firing the towns wherever he came,' says the 
old writer. There was hardly any fighting, but the English 
lost almost all their horses and many of their men through 
sickness and fatigue. 

In 1374 and 1375 the Earl of Kent was still in the French 
wars. In the latter year he was made a Knight of the 
Garter, and accompanied the Earl of Cambridge, son of 
the Duke of York, into Brittany with 3000 archers and 
2000 men-at-arms. When King Edward died in 1377, the 
Earl of Kent was in full manhood, about twenty-seven 
years old. In 1381 took place the rising caused by the 
poll tax in Kent and Essex. Joan, the widow Princess of 
Wales, was caught in the Tower by the Kentish rebels and 
treated with some rudeness. It was alleged that the two 
Hollands felt themselves so unpopular that when young 
King Richard rode to Smithfield to parley with Wat Tyler, 
they dropped out of his train and would not face the music 
of the mob. The subsequent punishment of the Kentish 
insurgents was entrusted to the Earl of Kent and was cruelly 
severe. In 1385 he accompanied the King's great expedition 
into Scotland. 

Thomas, Earl of Kent, and his brother John Holland, 
as half-brothers of King Richard, were constantly at Court, 
and they were accused of exercising a bad influence upon 
Richard. A monkish chronicler of the time, Walsingham, 
was evidently one of their best haters ; but then the Court 


party were accused of sympathy with the Lollards, who 
were, indeed, religious radicals not at all deserving sympathy, 
and their political opponents were the old aristocratic and 
more religiously conservative Englishmen. No doubt, also, 
the Hollands were still, notwithstanding their mother's 
rank, considered by the feudal party to be adventurers 
and upstarts. Holinshed wrote in Tudor days and based 
his statements mainly on the chronicles of the monk 
Walsingham and other ecclesiastics, but to some extent, 
perhaps, on tradition. He says that the people at the 
time of the arrest and death of the Duke of Gloucester and 
Arundel, accused John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, ' as 
one of the chief authors of all the mischief . . . having 
trained up the King in vice and evil customs from his youth.' 

He also says of Richard, ' He was seemly of shape and 
favour, and of nature good enough, if the wickedness and 
naughty demeanour of such as were about him had not 
altered it.' The learned modern historian. Bishop Stubbs, 
follows in the same line. The good Bishop of Oxford did 
not, by temperament, or character, or way of life, at all 
resemble the Hollands, and was not well qualified to under- 
stand or imagine them. He says in his ' Constitutional 
History ' (ii. p. 464) : 

' Richard was most unfortunate in his surroundings ; in 
his two half-brothers, the Hollands, he had companions of 
the worst sort, violent, dissipated, and cruel.' 

Again he says : 

' Capable of energetic and resolute action upon occasion, 
Richard was habitually idle, too conscious, perhaps, that 
when the occasion arose he would be able to meet it. 
The Hollands were willing that the tutelage should last 
as long as they could wield his power and reap advantage 
of his inactivity.' 

This may have been so, though blame of this kind seems 
to attach more in Richard's earliest days to his guardian 


uncles, but some of the contemporary evidence as to the 
character and motives of the Hollands must be taken with 
much caution. It is a bad thing for kings to inherit 
crowns in early boyhood. No doubt Richard was exposed 
to great flatteries and temptations. He was vacillating, 
inconstant, and easily influenced, childish and artistic in 
temperament, with no fixed convictions and no steadfast 
policy, the kind of man who will do anything to avoid 
a bad quarter of an hour. His Court was voluptuous and 
extravagant, even the most obsequious Parliament of hi? 
reign complained of the number of ' bishops and ladies ' 
who lived in it. In this Court the Hollands were certainly 
not immaculate any more than were the Guises, Beauforts, 
Rohans, and Rochefoucaulds in the Court of Louis XIII. 

One must judge them in connection with their own age 
and not by the test of modern moral standards. The 
end of the fourteenth century was not a morally good 
period. There was, indeed, much true religion existing. 
Was not Mother Julian at this very time receiving her 
revelations of divine love in her cell at Norwich ? Doubtless 
there was many a good parish priest like him described by 
Chaucer, and there was certainly among the English and 
other European common people more deep and true religious 
feeling than there is now. The exquisite religious art is 
a witness, for then, as now, artists delineated that which 
they saw in the faces all around them. The ideal was 
high, though lives often fell far short of it. If men were 
immoral, they were not hypocritical, and they knew how to 
repent. Ecclesiastical government was certainly demoralised 
and secularised by long prosperity and power ; it was ia 
many places corrupted by avarice, sensuality and worldly 
pursuits and pleasures, and it was discredited by the long 
papal schism. All this never reached a lower depth 
(except, perhaps, under Alexander VI) than when, a few- 
years later, John XXIII was Pope. The tide of Catholic 


fervour was still ebbing from the high point which it reached 
when it broke upon the walls of Jerusalem, and did not 
begin to flow again till the sixteenth century. Religion 
was loosely associated with her ever-uneasy companion 
Morality, and the way in which the marriage jurisdiction 
of the ecclesiastical lawyers at Rome was then exercised, 
was the reverse of salutary. Morals were lax, not only 
in royal and aristocratic, but also, if one may at all 
credit Chaucer and more prosaic records, in bourgeois circles. 
Then again, the old Saxon ferocity and barbarism in 
the English, and the aristocratic contempt of the Norman 
families for plebeian life had not yet softened down 
into the later civilisation. English and French gentlemen 
treated each other courteously enough, but other classes 
in France were mercilessly dealt with by the invaders. 
The story revealed in French chronicles is really dread- 
ful. Towns and villages were usually plundered, directly 
or by way of ransom, and often burnt, and their inhabitants 
were frequently slain and ravished. The kind of warfare 
is described in a letter from Sir John Wingfield to ' a certain 
noble lord then in England,' dated from Bordeaux, Decem- 
ber 22, 1355, giving an account of the Prince of Wales' cam- 
paign that year. Here is one passage. ' So then we marched 
through the seigniory of Thoulouse, and took many good 
towns before we came to Carcassonne, which is greater 
and stronger and fairer than York. But as well this as 
all other towns in the country which we took were burned, 
plundered and destroyed.' Or again, ' Then he (the Prince) 
went into the country of Estarac wherein he took many 
towns and wasted and ravaged all the country.' Imagine 
the details of this process. The object was, says Sir John, 
to destroy the revenues of the French King.^ The fact 

1 Sir John's two letters, very interesting, are quoted in Guthrie's History of 
England (1747). 


was that the English were then a hard and fierce race, httle 
as yet softened by civihsation. The historian Froude, 
describing them as they were a Httle later, calls them ' a 
sturdy high-hearted race, sound in body and fierce in spirit 
and furnished with thews and sinews which, under the 
stimulus of those great " shins of beef," their common diet, 
were the wonder of the age. . . . Again and again a few 
thousands of them carried dismay into the heart of France. 
. . . Invariably, by friend and foe alike, the English are 
described as the fiercest people in all Europe (the " English 
wild beasts " Benvenuto Cellini called them), and this great 
physical power they owed to the profuse abundance in which 
they lived, and the soldiery training in which every man 
of them was bred from childhood.' 

This training was not likely to make gentlemen of the 
mild and well-ordered mentality dear to constitutional 
historians of the Liberal school. Then again, no doubt, 
the long absences of gentlemen in foreign wars had, like 
the Crusades, bad effects on domestic morality. There is 
evidence that the level of morals and religion had declined 
both in England and France between the thirteenth 
century and the fifteenth. All these things had a deterior- 
ating effect on English character, except with regard to 
valour in fighting, a constant quality throughout all English 
history, and this influence was felt for two centuries to come. 

On the other side of the account one must admire the 
strong individuality of men of these times, not yet flattened 
out by the steam-roller of democratic civilisation. The 
French historian and statesmen, Guizot, said in one of his 
lectures that there is a political advantage in studying the 
Middle Ages. ' Our time may be characterised by a certain 
weakness, a certain softness in minds and manners. 
Individual wills and convictions want energy and confidence, 
obey a general impulse, and yield to an exterior necessity. 


Whether it be for resistance or for action, no one has a great 
idea of his own force, or any confidence in his own thought. 
Individuality, in a word, the intimate and personal energy 
of man, is weak and timid. Amidst the progress of general 
liberty many men seem to have lost the noble and powerful 
sentiment of their own liberty. Such was not the Middle 
Age, the social condition was then deplorable ' (and yet, 
perhaps, not, after all, so unhappy) 'but in many men 
individuality was strong and will energetic, the moral nature 
of men appeared here and there, in all its grandeur and 
with all its power.' In fact men were not yet so much 
* civilised ' as later, nor so far removed from the northern 
barbarian. Shakespeare lived before the change to modern 
civilisation had well set in, and he found in men around 
him models for his vigorous and passionate historical 
characters. Poets who wrote such speeches now would be 
copying from Shakespeare and not from life, which is why 
this kind of writing seems unreal. 

As to the Hollands, they were as vigorous, and probably 
not worse than, the other lords of their time whose position 
or wealth exposed them to the higher temptations. But 
they were usually on the unpopular and losing side, and 
this has made historians, who, on the contrary, are usually 
on the popular and winning side, write them down as specially 
bad men. 

John Holland was rather a favourite with the experienced 
Froissart, who knew a man of character when he came across 
one. We had much better take the opinion of such men of 
the world as Sir John Froissart, who knew John Holland very 
well at Richard's Court,^ or John de Wavrin, seigneur of 

1 Froissart lived in England between 1361 and 1360 and must have often seen 
the second Earl of Kent and Sir John Holland as boys, and he met them as men 
(unless John had already started for Palestine) at Richard's Court on his last 
visit to England in the summer of 1394, twenty-seven years later. 


Forestel, who knew men who remembered him, than of the 
monk, Walsingham, gloomily writing in the cloisters of St. 
Albans, or of the virtuous and learned Bishop Stubbs, writing 
in the nineteenth century in an Oxford library to show how 
the popular English Constitution developed notwithstanding 
the assaults of the malignant. Walsingham was prejudiced 
by anti-Lollardism, and Stubbs by the imagination of 
progress. The constitutional and economic histories written 
in the later nineteenth century, however meritorious, must 
have been an ungrateful offering to the muse of History when 
she remembered her Herodotus and Thucydides, her Livy 
and Plutarch and Tacitus, her Froissart and de Commines, 
her Gibbon and her Macaulay. For it is doubtful whether 
to the mind of a muse, being a woman, any degree of 
conscientious labour and scientific accuracy and ' sound 
political views, can compensate for the absence of dramatic 
and personal interest. 

John Holland was, it must be owned, of a violent temper 
in youth, and not tenderly scrupulous in action when older. 
In 1372, when he was about twenty, he went on a military 
expedition against the Scots. In 1381 he was made Chief 
Justice of Chester, and after that was seldom out of some 
great employment. In 1882 he was sent with Sir Simon 
de Burley and other men of quality to bring into England 
Anne, daughter to the Emperor Charles IV, whom Richard 
had espoused by proxy. They met the Princess at Calais 
and brought her across the sea to Dover, where they stayed 
for two days. Thence they escorted her over Barham 
Downs to Canterbury, where they were received in state 
by the Earl of Buckingham and others, and thence rode 
on to London and the impatient Richard. 

In the following year, 1388, the Duke of Lancaster was 
anxious to obtain men, ships and money for an expedition 
to assert his wife's claim to the throne of Castile. This was 


delayed by a rival expedition. Urban, the Italian Pope 
whom the English supported against his rival ' Pope ' 
Clement at Avignon, preached a crusade against the Clemen- 
tines, among whom were the King of France and the Count 
of Flanders. The English willingly took up this quarrel 
and a force crossed the sea under the very unfit command 
of the Bishop of Norwich, who was a Despenser. These 
crusaders slew some nine thousand Flemings near Dunkirk, 
and assisted by the jealous ' Gantois ' laid siege to Ypres, 
then a formidable industrial rival to Ghent. 

Upon the advance of a large French army from Arras, 
the English had to raise the siege and retire to Calais, and 
the entire expedition failed, rather to the satisfaction of 
the Duke of Lancaster and his friends, who wished for the 
rival Spanish expedition. They now attempted to make 
peace with the French in order to facilitate this object. 
In the following November, the Duke of Lancaster, his 
son, Henry of Derby, Sir John Holland, Sir John Cobham* 
Sir John Marmion and others were sent to meet the Dukes 
of Burgundy and Berry and other French lords at Wissant, 
between Calais and Boulogne, to try to arrange a peace or 
truce. The Count of Flanders gave the company a banquet 
in a pavilion made of Bruges cloth erected near the sea, and 
proceedings were agreeable and friendly, but the French 
asked too much, even for Calais itself, and the negotiations 
broke down. 

In the year 1384, rumour connected John Holland's 
name with a deed of violence. There was an Irish Carmelite 
Friar who had begun to hatch an accusation of treason 
against the Duke of Lancaster, whose daughter, Elizabeth, 
John Holland married two years later. Walsingham of 
St. Albans, the monkish chronicler, alleges that John Holland 
murdered this Friar Latimer in prison with his own hands, 
assisted by Sir Henry Green, in a shockingly cruel manner. 


Walsingham is the sole authority for this highly improb- 
able story, which later historians have repeated. He was 
evidently inspired by a violent dislike for the Hollands 
and their set. Beltz, the author of ' Memorials of the 
Order of the Garter,' justly observes, ' The horror with 
which the Lollard heresy had inspired him is evident at every 
mention of its fautors, to whom the Duke of Lancaster is 
known to have extended his protection.' Walsingham's 
credit in this matter is not increased by his transmission 
of the legend that, as Friar John Latimer's corpse was 
dragged through the streets, buds and leaves broke out 
from the wood of the hurdle to which it was bound, and 
that a blind man who touched it was restored to sight. 
It is quite unnecessary to believe the unlikely story that 
the King's half-brother put to death a miserable Irish Friar 
with his own hands. 

In the year 1384 both the Earl of Kent and his brother 
Sir John Holland were Knights of the Garter. The ward- 
robe accounts show that they, and other Knights of the 
Order, received in that year ' robes of cloth in violet colour, 
embroidered with garters, furred with miniver, and lined 
with scarlet.' 

In 1385 John Holland accompanied the King, who was 
now eighteen years old, in an expedition against the Scots. 
These incessant foes, aided by a strong contingent of their 
French allies, had invaded Northumberland, and were 
burning and destroying. The English made great prepara- 
tions for an expedition against Scotland both by land and 
sea. ' The King took the field,' says Froissart, ' accompanied 
by his uncles, the Earls of Cambridge and Buckingham, 
and his brothers, Sir Thomas and Sir John Holland. There 
were also the Earls of Salisbury and Arundel, the young 
Earl of Pembroke, the young Lord de Spencer, the Earl 
of Stafford, and so many barons and knights that they 


amounted to full forty thousand lances, without counting 
those of the Duke of Lancaster, the Earl of Northumberland, 
the Earl of Nottingham, the Lord Lacy, the Lord Neville 
and other barons of the marches, who were in pursuit of 
the French and the Scots, to the number of two thousand 
lances and fifteen hundred archers. The King and the 
lords who attended him had also full fifty thousand archers, 
without including the varlets.' Sir John Holland had in 
his pay and command 100 men-at-arms and 160 archers. 
The Earl of Stafford brought 120 men-at-arms and 180 
archers. His son Ralph Stafford had seven men and 
twelve archers. By such contingents, great and small, the 
feudal army was made up. The Scots and their French 
allies, who immensely disliked the food, drink, manners, 
language, and climate of the rude north, prudently retired 
into Scotland upon approach of this formidable host, 
and afterwards the English invaded Scotland, devastated 
the better part of it as far north as Aberdeen, and burned 
Edinburgh and Dunfermline and Dundee. But before that, 
when, on his advance northward, Richard was in Yorkshire 
at the beginning of August, a terrible thing happened in 
the English host which, as Froissart says, ' caused a mortal 
hatred between different lords,' and, as Thomas Walsingham 
says, ' clouded all public and private joy.' It would be a 
very great pity to relate this story in other words than those 
used by Froissart, whose way of relation recalls scenes in 
Homer's * Iliad.' He had known the Hollands as boys when 
he was in England in the early sixties, and he doubtless 
obtained the details of this story on the best authority. 

' Round about St. John of Beverley in the diocese of 

York, were lodged the King of England, and great plenty 

of the earls, barons and knights of his kingdom, for each 

odged the nearest they could to him, and especially his 

two uncles and his two brothers. Sir Thomas de Holland, 


Earl of Kent, and Sir John de Holland were there with a 
beautiful company of men-at-arms. In the retinue of the 
King was a knight of Bohemia, who was come to visit the 
Queen of England, and, for love of the Queen, the King 
and the lords entertained him well. The knight was named 
Sir Nicies ; a gay and handsome knight he was after the 
German fashion. And it chanced that in a horse camp in 
the fields outside a village near Beverley, two squires of Sir 
John de Holland, the brother of the King, had words about 
lodgings with Sir Nicies and followed him and made him 
great displeasure. Upon this, two archers of Ralph de 
Stafford, son of Earl de Stafford, began to take the part of 
the knight, because he was a foreigner, and blamed the 
squires, saying, " You are wrong to insult this knight. Do 
you know that he belongs to my lady the Queen and her 
country ? You ought to give him a preference over our- 
selves." " Ah," said one of the squires, " thou rascal, dost 
thou wish to talk ? What the devil hast thou to do with 
it if I blame his follies ? " " What have I to do with it ? " 
said the archer. " I have plenty to do with it, for he is a 
comrade of my master's and I'll not stand his being blamed 
or insulted." " And if I thought, rascal," said the squire, 
" that thou wouldest help him against me, I would run this 
sword through thy body." And as he spoke, he made as 
though he would strike him. The archer stepped back, 
for he held his bow all ready, drew a good arrow and let fly 
at the squire, and sent the arrow right through his breast 
and heart and killed him dead. 

' The other squire, when he saw his comrade thus served, 
fled. Sir Nicies was already gone back to his lodging. 
The archers returned to their master and told him their 
adventure. Sir Ralph said they had done ill. " By my 
faith," replied the archer, " Sir, it had to be so if I wished 
not to be killed, and I had rather I killed him than that 


he killed me." " Come, come ! " said Sir Ralph. 
f* Don't go where they can find you. I will arrange 
peace with Sir John de Holland, through my lord, my 
father, or others." The archer answered and said, " Very 
well. Sir." 

' News came to Sir John de Holland that one of the archers 
of Sir Ralph de Stafford had slain one of his squires, the 
one whom he loved best in all the world, and they told him 
that it had been the fault of Sir Nicies, this foreign knight. 
When Sir John de Holland heard what had happened, he 
was furiously enraged and said, " Never will I drink or eat 
till this be avenged." Forthwith, he got on his horse, 
and made his men mount also, and went from his lodging, 
and by now it was late in the evening, and he made inquiry 
where this Sir Nicies was lodged. They told him they 
thought he was lodged in the rear-guard with the Earl of 
Devonshire and the Earl of Stafford and their people. Sir 
John de Holland took this road and began to ride about at 
hazard to find this Sir Nicies. As he and his men rode 
between hedges and bushes along a very narrow lane where 
those who encountered could not turn aside. Sir Ralph 
de Stafford and Sir John de Holland met each other, and 
when they saw each other, each asked in passing, " And who 
is there ? " "I am Stafford." And " I am Holland." 
Then said Sir John de Holland, who was still in his fviry, 
" Stafford, Stafford ! I was looking for thee ! Thy people 
have killed my squire whom I loved well." And thereupon 
he thrust out with a Bordeaux sword which he held 
unsheathed and naked. His thrust pierced the body of 
Sir Ralph de Stafford, and laid him dead, which was a great 
pity. And then he passed on and knew not yet whom he 
had slain, but he knew well that he had slain someone. 
Then were the men of Sir Ralph de Stafford much enraged 
when they saw their master dead, and began to shout, " Ah 


Holland, Holland ! You have slain the son of the Earl of 
Stafford ! Evil tidings will they be to his father when he 
shall know it ! " Some of the men of Sir John de Holland 
heard this and said to their master, " Sir, you have slain 
Sir Ralph de Stafford ! " "All the better," said Sir John. 
" I would rather have killed him than one of less degree, 
for so I have the better avenged my boy." 

' Then went Sir John Holland to the town of St. John 
of Beverley, and took sanctuary, and departed not thence, 
for well he knew that he should have great trouble in the 
army from the friends of the knight for his death, and he 
knew not what his brother, the King of England, would say 
of it. So to avoid all these dangers, he shut himself up in 
the sanctuary. 

' News came to the Earl of Stafford that his son was 
slain by a great misadventure. " Slain ! " said the EarL 
*' And who killed him ? " 

' Those who had been there said, " My lord, it was the 
King's brother, Sir John de Holland," and they told him 
how it was and why. Those who loved his son, for many 
there were, and they were fine, young, bold and enterprising 
knights, were wroth beyond measure, and he called 
together all his friends to take counsel what he should 
do and how he should avenge himself. But the wisest 
and best advised of his counsellors held him back, and 
told him that on the morrow they should lay this before 
the King of England, and require that he should do law 
and justice. 

' So passed the night, and in the morning Sir Ralph de 
Stafford was buried in a church of a village thereby, and 
there were there present all those of his kindred, lords and 
knights that were in this army. 

' After the funeral, the Earl of Stafford and full sixty 
of his lineage and that of his son, mounted their horses and 


came to the King, who was already informed of this adven- 
ture ; they found the King and his uncles and great plenty 
of other lords with him. The Earl of Stafford, when he was 
come before the King, knelt, and then said with weeping, 
and in great anguish of heart : " King, thou art King of all 
England, and thou hast solemnly sworn to maintain right 
in the realm, and to do justice, and thou knowest how thy 
brother without cause or reason has slain my son and heir. 
I require that thou do me right and justice, or else thou shalt 
have no worse enemy than me, and I will thee to know that 
the death of my son touches me so near that, were I not 
unwilling to break and ruin the expedition on which we are, 
and to receive more harm than honour by the trouble which 
I should bring into our host, it should be paid for and avenged 
so highly that men would talk of it in England for a hundred 
years to come. But now I will refrain so long as we be 
on this expedition to Scotland, for I will not rejoice our 
enemies by my grief." 

' " Earl of Stafford," replied the King, " be assured 
that I will maintain justice and right to the highest limit 
that the lords of my realm can deem possible, and that not 
for any brother will I fail to do so." Then answered the 
kinsmen of the Earl of Stafford, " Sir, you have spoken well 
and great thanks to you." 

' The Earl of Stafford went through the expedition to 
Scotland, and during all that time he seemed to have for- 
gotten the death of his son, wherein all the lords thought 
he showed great wisdom.' So far Froissart. 

John Holland was aged about thirty-three when this 
happened. His unpremeditated deed of chance fury in 
that dark lane near Beverley was attended by disastrous 
consequences years later, and was one of the causes which 
indirectly contributed to the downfall and murder of 


Richard II. On such chances or destinies do things depend. 
If the honest archers had not overheard the squires banter- 
ing with youthful spirits the possibly fantastic German 
knight, many things might have happened otherwise than 
they did. 

The King at first declared that his brother must expiate 
the crime by the extreme rigour of the law. Ralph Stafford 
had been a favourite at the Court, having been bred up with 
the King from childhood. He was also a great friend of 
the Queen's, and was on his way to speak with her about the 
affair when, by ill-fortune, he met Holland in the dark lane 
near Beverley. 

The Princess of Wales, the mother both of Richard 
and of John Holland, was at Wallingford on the Thames. 
She heard that the King had vowed that John should suffer 
death, and sent to him a messenger imploring him to have 
mercy on his brother, but finding that her prayer availed 
not, she fell into such grief that she died within five days. 
Her body was wrapt in cere cloth and enclosed in a lead 
coffin, and was kept till the King's return from Scotland 
and then was buried, not by the side of her more glorious 
second husband, the Black Prince, in Canterbury Cathedral, 
but by that of her first husband. Sir Thomas Holland, Earl 
of Kent, in the Abbey of the Grey Friars at Stamford. Their 
monument, like hundreds of the most interesting monuments 
in England, perished with the Abbey at the Reformation. 
Such was the end of the singular life of the Fair Maid of 

Her will began thus : 

' In the year of Our Lord 1385 and of the reign of my 
dear son, Richard King of England and France the ninth, 
at my castle of Wallingford in the diocese of Salisbury the 
7th of August ; I Joan, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Corn- 


wall. Countess of Chester and Lady Wake ; ^ etc. My body 
to be buried in my Chapel at Stamford near the monument 
of my late lord and husband the Earl of Kent ; To my dear 
son, the King, my new bed of red velvet embroidered with 
ostrich feathers of silver and herds of leopards of gold with 
boughs and leaves issuing out of their mouths ; To my dear 
son, Thomas Earl of Kent, my bed of red camak paied with 
red and rays of gold ; To my dear son John Holland a bed 
of red camak ; To — etc' 

Her executors were the Bishops of London and 
Winchester, Lord Cobham, Sir William de Beauchamp, Sir 
William de Nevill, Sir Simon de Burley, Sir Lewis de Clifford, 
Sir Richard de Sturry and six others, two of whom were 
her ' dear chaplains.' The Princess was at her death about 
fifty-seven years old. She had returned to England with 
her sick husband in 1373, and had been a widow since he 
died at Westminster on June 8, 1376. 

King Richard, after all, proved swiftly placable. The 
Duke of Lancaster and other lords mediated between the 
Staffords, the Hollands, and the King. An agreement was, 
at last, arrived at that John should go through a public 
ceremonial symbolic of penitence and remorse, and should 
also ' find three priests to celebrate divine service every 
day, to the world's end, for the soul of him, the said Ralph, 
in some such place as the King should appoint.' Where- 
upon the King appointed that two of the priests should 
perform this at the very place where Ralph Stafford was 
slain, and the third in some place near to it. It was, how- 
ever, afterwards arranged that all the masses should be 
said at Langley in Hertfordshire, in the Church of the ' Friars 
Preachers,' where young Stafford's body was finally interred. 
This mode of expiation was then not uncommon. So 

1 Edward III had made Sir Thomas Holland Baron Wake of Lydel. Joan's 
mother was Margaret, heiress of Lord Wake of Lydel in Cumberland. 


Shakespeare makes Henry V say in his meditation on the 
eve of the battle of Agincourt : 

Not to-day, O Lord ! 
O ! not to-day, think not upon the fault 
My father made in compassing the crown. 
I Richard's body have interred new; 
And on it have bestow'd more contrite tears 
Than from it issued forced drops of blood : 
Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay, 
Who twice a-day their wither'd hands hold up 
Toward heaven, to pardon blood ; and I have built 
Two chantries, where the sad and solemn priests 
Sing still for Richard's soul. 

The monastic chronicler, Malvern, gives an account in 
Latin of the ceremonial act of penitence performed, no 
doubt prudently but reluctantly, by John Holland. It 
was at Windsor Castle. ' John Holland, clothed in 
mourning, entered to the King, between the Archbishop of 
Canterbury and the Bishop of London, and thrice bowed 
to the ground on his knees and arms, before he came to 
him, then, raising himself on his knees, and extending his 
arms upwards, weeping and humbly seeking mercy from 
the King, and beseeching forgiveness for that rashly and 
indiscreetly he had committed such a crime contrary to 
prohibition. Some of those who stood around wept on 
seeing this. At the third prostration the said Bishops knelt 
before the King with him. Then the King, somewhat 
moved by the prayers of the nobles who were present, and 
chiefly by those of Earls Stafford and Warwick, whom 
above all the Lord John Holland had offended, pardoned 
him for that which he had done.' It was the kind of 
carefully arranged, and somewhat Byzantine, ceremonial, 
which Richard II enjoyed above all things. 


After this enforced forgiveness, the Earl of Stafford, 
deprived of the hope of his House, departed on a pilgrimage 
to Jerusalem, and died, in 1387, on his way home, in the 
Island of Rhodes. His body was brought home to England 
by John Hinkley, his squire, and buried with those of his 
ancestors before the high altar of Stone, in Staffordshire. 
John Holland, on the other hand, pursued his wild career. 
He was so quickly restored to full royal favour that a few 
months later he was sent with John of Gaunt, Duke of 
Lancaster, to treat with the Earl of Flanders touching 
certain differences then pending between the English and 
the Flemings, and also to treat of peace with the French. 
In the earlier half of the same year, 1386, John Holland 
married Elizabeth, second daughter of the Duke of Lan- 
caster, and sister to Henry of Bohngbroke, Earl of Derby. 
This was the second marriage with the royal family 
made by the Hollands. Elizabeth of Lancaster was 
on her father's side granddaughter of Edward III, and 
on both sides was a descendant from Henry III. But 
notwithstanding these successes the crime at Beverley 
pursued John Holland to the disastrous end of his life. 
He had slain a distinguished member of the ring of 
the great Norman-descended families, and he was never 

Blanche, daughter of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, the 
mother of Elizabeth, was the heiress who brought the vast 
Lancaster possessions to John of Gaunt. She was not only 
the greatest heiress but one of the most delightful women 
of her time. Froissart, an excellent judge in these things, 
says of this Blanche : ' I never saw two such noble dames, 
so good, liberal and courteous as this lady and the late 
Queen of England (Philippa), nor ever shall, were I to live 
a thousand years, which is impossible.' Blanche of 
Lancaster died of the ' Black Death ' pestilence in 1369, 



Reproduced from a church window in Sandford's ' G-enealogical History of the Kings of England,' 1707 


still a young woman. A French contemporary poet wrote 
of her charmingly : 

Elle morut jeime et jolie. 
Environ de vingt et deux ans, 
Gaie, lie, friche, esbatans, 
Douce, simple, d'umble semblance. 
La bonne dame 6t a nom Blanche.^ 

The poet was wrong as to the twenty-two years. She 
died, in 1369, at twenty-eight years of age, but left her 
children quite young, Henry, Philippa, and Elizabeth. John 
of Gaunt, soon afterwards, in 1371, married his second wife, 
the Princess Constance of Castile. Philippa and Elizabeth 
were placed under the charge of Katherine, wife of Sir 
Hugh Swynford, as a governess and duenna. This Katherine 
was the daughter of a Hainault gentleman who came over 
to the Court of England with Queen Philippa. Katherine 
was very beautiful and seductive and knew the ways of 
the Court. In the inscription on the once existing monument 
of John of Lancaster in St. Paul's Cathedral she was de- 
scribed as 'eximia pulchritudine feminam.' Froissart calls 
her ' une dame qui scavoit moult de toutes honneurs.' She 
was made a Lady of the Order of the Garter in 1387. The 
Duke of Lancaster, all his life, was notoriously pervious 
to feminine seductions. Katherine Swynford, while her 
husband was in France, and during the Duke's marriage 
to Constance of Castile, became his mistress and bore to 
him three sons, the Beauforts, and two daughters. After 
the death of Constance, the Duke, then fifty-six years of 
age, married Katherine, who was ten years younger, and 
their offspring were declared legitimate both by Act of 
Parliament and by a Bull of Pope Boniface IX. 

Philippa and Elizabeth, the daughters of the good Blanche, 

^ From Le Joli Buisson de Jonece. 


were thus brought up in immoral surroundings. Elizabeth 
was betrothed in childhood to a young boy, the Earl of 
Pembroke. When she was old enough she was brought 
to the royal Court to acquire the manners of the day. Here 
John Holland made ardent love to her, and in 1386, soon 
after the Stafford affair, they were married, hurriedly, 
it seems, and without much ceremony, with a view, it was 
alleged, to the saving of honour.^ Elizabeth was about 
twenty-two and John Holland about thirty-four when 
this marriage took place. It was as important in the 
relationships and history of the Hollands as that 
which Thomas Holland had made with the Fair Maid 
of Kent. 

The sister of Blanche, the mother of Elizabeth, her aunt 
Maud of Lancaster, had married for her first husband Ralph 
de Stafford, the victim of the encounter at Beverley, so 
that John Holland married the niece of the wife of the 
man whom he had killed a few months earlier. 

During this period the elder Holland brother, Thomas, 
Earl of Kent, had advanced in his mundane career. 
After his return to England, during the truce in the 
endless French war, he received a money grant from 
the Crown. In 1378 he acted as a Commissioner in 
awarding certain damages between the English and 
the Scots, and in the same year he was made Marshal 
of England. In 1381 he was sent as an Ambassador to 
Flanders to treat of the marriage between Richard II and 
Anne, the Emperor's sister. After his mother's death in 1386, 
he obtained numerous manors of her inheritance. He was 

^ A contemporary monastic chronicler, Malvern, gives some details as to this, 
which show the story circulating at the time. He is the only authority, and the 
gossip about a distant and saspected Court current in provincial monasteries must 
be received with caution. But John Holland's passionate and hasty character, 
and the level of morals in John of Gaunt's house, makes this story probable 


now a wealthy Earl, and his wife, Alice Fitz-Alan, daughter 
of the ninth Earl of the noble and ancient House of Arundel, 
bore a large family of beautiful children, of whom more 
hereafter. Through his daughters he was the ancestor 
of many kings and great nobles, down to the present 



Faire sheilds, gay steedes, bright armes, be my delight, 
These be the riches fit for an advent'rous knight. 


John Holland's life was more filled with adventure than 
that of his elder brother, Thomas, Earl of Kent. The Duke 
of Lancaster's second wife, Constance, was the elder daughter 
of King Pedro ' The Cruel,' of Castile and Leon, who had 
been dethroned by his illegitimate half-brother, Enrique. 
Pedro recovered the throne in 1367 after the Black Prince's 
victory over Enrique at Najara, but, a year later, was over- 
thrown again by Enrique, and slain by that brother's own 
hand. Pedro's two daughters fled to the Black Prince's 
Court at Bordeaux, and there Lancaster met and married 
Constance. Enrique's son, John, supported by the French, 
was now King of Castile. For some years the Duke of 
Lancaster had called himself King of Castile in right of his 
wife, daughter of a legitimate sovereign whose throne had 
been usurped by a bastard line. He now proposed to set 
forth for Spain at the head of a fleet and army to vindicate 
the claim. For political reasons he was glad to leave 
England for a space, and King Richard was delighted 
to get rid of at least one powerful uncle. Govern- 
ment support was therefore given to this expedition. 
Parliament voted a supply, and, in July 1386, Lancaster 
sailed from Plymouth with a force of men-at-arms and 



archers. Sir John Holland had good reasons of his own 
for leaving England for a while, and he was appointed 
to be Constable of this army. The Marshal was Sir Thomas 
Moreaux, who was married, according to Froissart, to an 
illegitimate daughter of the Duke. The Duchess of Lancaster 
went in the Duke's ship with her own daughter Catherine 
and the Duke's two daughters by his first marriage, Eliza- 
beth, now the wife of John Holland, and Philippa, the elder 
sister, a girl still unwed. 

' It was,' says Froissart, ' the month of May ' (it really 
was July) 'when they embarked, and they had the usual 
fine weather of that pleasant season.' They sailed near 
enough to the French shores to be seen, ' and a fine sight 
it was, for there were upwards of two hundred sail. It 
was delightful to observe the galleys, which had men-at- 
arms on board, coast the shores in search of adventures as 
they heard the French fleet was at sea.' So it had been, but 
had retired into Havre. The Duke resolved to put into 
Brest in order to relieve the castle, where an English garrison 
was being blockaded by a Breton force. ' The weather,* 
says Froissart, ' was now delightful, and the sea so calm 
that it was a pleasure to be on it ; the fleet advanced with 
an easy sail, and arrived at the mouth of Brest harbour, 
where, waiting for the tide, they entered in safety. The 
clarions and trumpets sounded sweetly from the barges 
and the castle.' A spirited encounter, in which no one was 
much hurt, followed, and the besiegers evacuated their 
positions and retired up country. The Duke, Sir John 
Holland, and some other knights, went into the castle, with 
their ladies, and had refreshments. On the next day they 
set sail for Corunna, where they cast anchor five days later. 
' It was a fine sight,' Froissart continues, ' to view all the 
ships and galleys enter the port, laden with men-at-arms, 
with trumpets and clarions sounding.' A defiant reply 


was blown by trumpets and clarions from the castle, then 
by chance occupied by a force of French knights who had 
come to assist the Castilian King, and happened to be passing 
on a pilgrimage to San lago of Compostella. The English 
landed, and the Duke sent the ships back to England, for 
he wished all the world to know, he said, ' that I will never 
recross the sea to England, until I be master of Castile, or 
die in the attempt,' The army lodged in huts covered with 
leaves and remained before Corunna for nearly a month 
' amusing themselves, for the chief lords had brought hounds 
for their pastime, and hawks for the ladies. They had also 
mills to grind their corn, and ovens to bake, for they never 
willingly go to war in foreign countries without carrying 
things of that kind with them.' 

One day the French garrison in Corunna surprised 
a party of three hundred English foraging archers, and 
killed two hundred of them. The Duke and Sir John 
Holland, the Constable, sharply reprimanded Sir Thomas 
Moreaux the Marshal for letting foragers go so near the 
enemy without a protecting guard of men-at-arms. Sir 
Thomas replied that ' they had been caught, to be sure, 
this once, though they had foraged ten times before with- 
out any interruption.' 'Sir Thomas,' said the Duke, 'be 
more cautious in future ; for such things may fall out in 
one day or hour, as may not happen again in a century.' 

At the end of a month the army abandoned the siege of 
Corunna, and marched in three battalions to San lago of 
Compostella. The Marshal led the van of 300 lances and 
700 archers ; next marched the Duke with 400 spears, 
accompanied by all the ladies. The rear was composed of 
400 lances and 700 archers, accompanied by the Constable, 
Sir John Holland. San lago surrendered, on a threat of 
total destruction if it did not, and became Lancaster's head- 
quarters. The Duke and his ladies lodged in the Abbey, 


Sir John Holland and Sir Thomas Moreaux in the town, 
and the rest in houses or extemporised huts. There was 
plenty of meat, and so much strong wine that the English 
archers ' were for the greater part of their time in bed drunk, 
and very often, by drinking too much new wine, they had 
fevers, and in the morning such headaches as to prevent 
them from doing anything the rest of the day.' The English 
fought no battles, but took two or three towns, and 
devastated the country, as did also the French who had come 
to assist the King of Castile. The King of Portugal was 
friendly to the English, and arranged to meet the Duke of 
Lancaster on the Portuguese frontier. The Duke and Sir 
John Holland rode to the place appointed, at the head of 
300 spears and 600 archers. The King gave a dinner to the 
Duke in a pavilion covered with leaves. ' The Bishops of 
Coimbra and Oporto and Braganza were seated at the King's 
table with the Duke, and a little below him were Sir John 
Holland and Sir Henry Beaumont. There were many 
minstrels, and this festivity lasted till night.' The King 
was clothed in white lined with crimson, with a red cross 
of St. George. The next day the Duke gave a return dinner 
in his pavilion to the King. The apartments were hung 
with cloth and covered with carpets just as if ' the King 
had been at Lisbon or the Duke in London.' It was settled 
that they should attack the usurper of Castile, early in March, 
with their united forces, and then they talked about a 
marriage for the King, who was still unwed. The Duke 
said, ' Sir King, I have at San lago two girls, and I will 
give you the choice to take which of them shall please you 
best. Send thither your Council and I will return her with 
them.' ' Many thanks,' said the King, ' you offer me more 
than I ask. I will leave my cousin, Catherine of Castile, but 
I demand your daughter Philippa in marriage.' Two days 
later the Duke gave a still more glorious banquet to the 


King. 'His apartments,' says Froissart, 'were decorated 
with the richest tapestry, with his arms emblazoned upon 
it, and as splendidly ornamented, as if he had been at Hert- 
ford, Leicester, or at any of his mansions in England, which 
very much astonished the Portuguese.' 

On the Duke's return to San lago the Duchess asked 
him many questions about the Portuguese King as to whose 
character, health, strength, and appearance the Duke gave 
a favourable report. ' Well, and what was done in regard 
to the marriage ? ' said the Duchess. ' I have given him 
one of my daughters.' ' Which ? ' asked the Duchess. ' I 
offered him the choice of Catherine or Philippa, for which 
he thanked me much, and fixed on Philippa.' ' He is right,' 
said the Duchess, ' for my daughter Catherine is too young 
for him.' There must have been much talk about all this 
among the ladies at San lago, and Elizabeth Holland may 
have felt a touch of jealousy that, in the result of too easy 
a surrender, she was only the wife of King Richard's half- 
brother while her own sister Philippa was to be a reigning 

After this came some more warfare, in the course of 
which Sir John Holland took by storm a Galician town 
called Ribadeo, where 1500 unfortunate townsmen, whose 
only offence was that they had refused to surrender, 
were slaughtered by the English, and much booty was 

Thereafter the Archbishop of Braganza arrived at San 
lago to marry the Lady Philippa for the King of Portugal 
by way of proxy. The ceremony was performed, ' and the 
Archbishop of Braganza ' (says the ever-delightful Froissart) 
' and the Lady Philippa were courteously laid beside each 
other, on a bed, as married persons should be.' On the 
morrow she mounted her palfrey, as did also her damsels 
and her bastard sister, Lady Moreaux. Sir John Holland 


and Sir Thomas Percy escorted her to Oporto with 100 
spears and 200 archers. There were banquetings, music 
and dancing, and a grand tournament, in which Sir John 
Holland won the stranger's prize. The last words that the 
King, who was much pleased with Philippa, said to Holland 
were that he was ready to invade Castile with the Duke. 
* That is good news indeed,' said the Duke when Holland 
repeated this to him. 

The Duke soon took the field and captured a town of im- 
portance called by Froissart Entenca (the modern Betanzos, 
probably). At Valladolid, among the French who had come 
to aid the King of Castile, was a knight famous for his 
prowess in battles and in tournaments, Sir Reginald de 
Roye. The following story must be quoted in full from 
Froissart, for it is very characteristic both of those times, in 
which war and tournaments were different forms of the most 
popular game, and also of that writer. Froissart says : 

' During the stay of the Duke of Lancaster in Entenca, 
a herald arrived from Valladolid, who demanded where Sir 
John Holland was lodged. On being shown thither, he 
found Sir John within, and, bending his knee, presented 
him a letter, saying, " Sir, I am a herald-at-arms, whom Sir 
Reginald de Roye sends hither : he salutes you by me, and 
you will be pleased to read this letter." Sir John answered, 
he would willingly do so. Having opened it, he read that 
Sir Reginald de Roye entreated him, for the love of his 
mistress, that he would deliver him from his vow, by tilting 
with him three courses with the lance, three attacks with 
the sword, three with the battle-axe, and three with the 
dagger ; and that if he chose to come to Valladolid, he had 
provided him an escort of sixty spears ; but, if it were more 
agreeable to him to remain in Entenca, he desired he would 
obtain from the Duke of Lancaster a passport for himself 
and thirty companions. 


' When Sir John Holland had perused the letter, he 
smiled, and, looking at the herald, said, " Friend, thou art 
welcome ; for thou hast brought me what pleases me much, 
and I accept the challenge. Thou wilt remain in my lodging, 
with my people, and, in the course of to-morrow, thou shalt 
have my answer, whether the tilts are to be in Galicia or 
Castile." The herald replied, " God grant it." He remained 
in Sir John's lodgings, where he was made comfortable ; 
and Sir John went to the Duke of Lancaster, whom he 
found in conversation with the Marshal, and showed the 
letter the herald had brought. " Well," said the Duke, 
" and have you accepted it ? " " Yes, by my faith have I ; 
and why not ? I love nothing better than fighting, and 
the knight entreats me to indulge him : consider, therefore, 
where you would choose it should take place." The Duke 
mused a while, and then said, " It shall be performed in this 
town : have a passport made out in what terms you 
please, and I will seal it." "It is well said," replied 
Sir John ; " and I will, in God's name, soon make out the 

' The passport was fairly written and sealed for thirty 
knights and squires to come and return ; and Sir John 
Holland, when he delivered it to the herald, presented him 
with a handsome mantle lined with minever and with twelve 
nobles. The herald took leave and returned to Valladolid, 
where he related what had passed, and showed his presents. 

' News of this tournament was carried to Oporto, where 
the King of Portugal kept his court. " In the name of God," 
said the King, " I will be present at it, and so shall my 
queen and the ladies." " Many thanks," replied the Duchess 
of Lancaster ; " for I shall be accompanied by the King 
and Queen when I return." It was not long after this 
conversation that the King of Portugal, the Queen, the 
Duchess with her daughter and the ladies of the court, 


set out for Entenca in grand array. The Duke of Lancaster, 
when they were near at hand, mounted his horse, and, 
attended by a numerous company, went to meet them. 
\Mien the King and Duke met, they embraced each other 
most kindly, and entered the town together, where their 
lodgings were as well prepared as they could be in such a 
place, though they were not so magnificent as if they had 
been at Paris. 

' Three days after the arrival of the King of Portugal, 
came Sir Reginald de Roye, handsomely accompanied by 
knights and squires, to the amount of six score horse. They 
were all properly lodged ; for the Duke had given his officers 
strict orders they should be well taken care of. On the 
morrow. Sir John Holland and Sir Reginald de Roye 
armed themselves, and rode into a spacious close, well 
sanded, where the tilts Avere to be performed. Scaffolds 
were erected for the ladies, the King, the Duke, and the 
many English lords who had come to witness the combat ; 
for none had staid at home. 

' The two knights, who were to perform this deed of 
arms, entered the lists so well armed and equipped that 
nothing was wanting. Their spears, battle-axes and swords, 
were brought them ; and each, being mounted on the best 
of horses, placed himself about a bow-shot distant from 
the other, but at times they pranced about on their horses 
most gallantly, for they knew every eye to be upon them. 

' All being now arranged for their combat, which was to 
include everything except pushing it to extremity, though 
no one could foresee what mischief might happen, nor how 
it would end ; for they were to tilt with pointed lances, then 
with swords, which were so sharp that scarcely a helmet 
could resist their strokes ; and these were to be succeeded 
by battle-axes and daggers, each so well tempered that 
nothing could withstand them. Now, consider the perils 


those run who engage in such combats to exalt their honour, 
for one unlucky stroke puts an end to the business. 

' Having braced their targets and examined each other 
through the visors of their helmets, they spurred on their 
horses spear in hand. Though they allowed their horses 
to gallop as they pleased, they advanced on as straight a 
line as if it had been drawn with a cord, and hit each other 
on the visors with such force that Sir Reginald's lance v/as 
shivered into four pieces, which flew to a greater height than 
they could have been thrown. All present allowed this to 
be gallantly done. Sir John Holland struck Sir Reginald 
likewise on the visor, but not with the same success, and I 
will tell you why. Sir Reginald had but lightly laced on 
his helmet, so that it was held by one thong only, which 
broke at the blow, and the helmet flew over his head, leaving 
Sir Reginald bare-headed. Each passed the other, and Sir 
John Holland bore his lance without halting. The spectators 
cried out that it was a fine course. The knights returned 
to their stations, when Sir Reginald's helmet was fitted on 
again and another lance given to him ; Sir John grasped 
his own, which was not broken. When ready, they set 
off full gallop, for they had excellent horses under them 
which they well knew how to manage, and again struck each 
other on the helmets, so that sparks of fire came from them, 
but chiefly from Sir John Holland's. He received a very 
severe blow, for this time the lance did not break ; neither 
did Sir John's, which hit the visor of his adversary without 
much effect, passing through, and leaving it on the crupper 
of the horse, and Sir Reginald was once more bare-headed. 
" Ha ! " cried the English to the French, " he does not fight 
fair : why is not his helmet as well buckled on as Sir John 
Holland's ? We say he is playing tricks : tell him to put 
himself on an equal footing with his adversary." " Hold 
your tongues ! " said the Duke, " and let them alone : in 


arms, every one takes what advantage he can : if Sir John 
think there is any advantage in thus fastening on the helmet, 
he may do the same. But for my part, were I in their 
situations, I would lace my helmet as tight as possible ; and, 
if one hundred were asked their opinions, there would be 
four-score of my way of thinking." The English, on this, 
were silent, and never again interfered. The ladies declared 
they had nobly jousted ; and they were much praised by 
the King of Portugal, who said to Sir John Fernando, " In 
our country, they do not tilt so well, nor so gallantly : what 
say you, Sir John ? " " By my faith, sir," replied he, 
" they do tilt well ; and formerly I saw as good jousts before 
your brother, when we were at Elvas to oppose the King 
of Castile, between this Frenchman and Sir William Windsor ; 
but I never heard that his helmet was tighter laced then 
than it is now." 

' The King on this turned from Sir John to observe the 
knights, who were about to begin their third course. Sir 
John and Sir Reginald eyed each other, to see if any advantage 
were to be gained, for their horses were so excellent that 
they could manage them as they pleased, and, sticking 
spurs into them, hit their helmets so sharply that they 
struck fire, and the shafts of their lances were broken. Sir 
Reginald was again unhelmed, for he could never avoid 
this happening, and they passed each other without falling. 
All now declared they had well jousted ; though the English, 
excepting the Duke of Lancaster, blamed greatly Sir Regi- 
nald ; but he said, " he considered that man as wise who in 
combat knows how to seize his vantage. Know," added he, 
addressing himself to Sir Thomas Percy and Sir Thomas 
Moreaux, " that Sir Reginald de Roye is not now to be 
taught how to tilt : he is better skilled than Sir John Holland, 
though he has borne himself well." 

' After the courses of the lance, they fought three rounds 


with swords, battle-axes, and daggers, without either of 
them being wounded. The French carried off Sir Reginald 
to his lodgings, and the English did the same to Sir John 

The Duke then entertained at dinner all the French 
visitors ; the Duchess sat beside him, and next to her Sir 
Reginald de Roye. After dinner, the Duchess said to the 
French knights, with tears in her eyes, that she marvelled 
much that gentlemen like themselves could fight for the 
claim of a bastard against her claim as rightful heiress. Sir 
Reginald bowed, and said, ' Madam, we know that what 
you have said is true ; but our lord, the King of France, 
holds a different opinion from yours, and, as we are his 
liegemen, we must make war for him, and go whitherso- 
ever he may send us, for we cannot disobey him.' At these 
words Sir John Holland and Sir Thomas Percy handed 
the lady to her chamber ; wine and spices were brought, 
and then the French knights took leave, mounted their 
horses and rode to Valladolid. 

After the tournament, the Duke and the King of Portugal 
had a conference, and settled plans of operation. The 
King was to enter Castile while the Duke continued to 
subdue Galicia, and they were not to join forces unless the 
enemy showed inclination to battle. The reason was partly 
one of forage supplies, but also because the armies might 
easily quarrel, ' for the English are hasty and proud, and 
the Portuguese hot and impetuous, easily angered, and 
not soon pacified.' But if a battle against the common 
foe were imminent they would agree very well for the time, 
'like Gascons,' says Froissart, or, as we perhaps should say, 
like the Irish. The English captured a town or two, but 
the campaigning had no appreciable results, the weather 
was hot, and the men began to grumble in good old English 
fashion. One said — ' We should have done more if he had 


not brought women who only wish to remain quiet, and 
for one day that they are incHned to travel they will repose 
fifteen. What the devil ! ^Vhat business had the Duke 
to bring his wife and daughters with him, since he came 
here for conquest ? It was quite unreasonable, for it has 
been a great hindrance to him.' Others said that Spain 
was not nearly so pleasant a country to make war in as 
France, ' where there are plenty of large villages, a fair 
country, fine provender, ponds, rich pastures, and good 
wines, and a climate fairly temperate ; but here everything 
is the reverse.' There was also much sickness in the army, 
due in part to excessive drinking, by men brought up on 
good ale, of the hard and hot Spanish wines. The horses 
were in bad condition and died, and so did very many of 
the men. The Duke himself was unwell. The enemy, 
under the guidance of a wary antagonist, the Frenchman 
Bertrand du Guesclin, who had been made Constable of 
Castile, kept in the towns and castles most of which they 
held, harassed the English in small encounters, and offered 
no large battle. This was also the successful policy of 
du Guesclin in France. 

Sir John Holland saw the army daily wasting away, 
and heard the bitter complaint of the men. They used, 
says Froissart, words such as these : ' Ah, my lord of Lan- 
caster, why have you brought us to Castile ? Accursed 
be the voyage ! He does not, it seems, wish that any English- 
man should ever again quit his country to serve him. He 
seems resolved to kick against the pricks. He will have 
his men guard the country he has won ; but when they shall 
all be dead, who will then guard it ? He shows poor know- 
ledge of war, for why, when he saw that no enemy came to 
fight him, did he not retreat into Portugal, or elsewhere, 
to avoid the losses he must now suffer ? For we shall all die 
of this cursed disease, and without having struck a blow.' 


Sir John Holland, adds Froissart, ' was much hurt 
on hearing such language, for the honour of the Duke 
whose daughter he had married, and he determined to 
speak with him on the matter, which, from his situation, 
he could do more easily than any one else.' 

He said to the Duke : ' My lord, you must at once change 
your plans, for your army is all sick. If an assault should 
now be made upon you, you could not meet it, for your 
men are all worn down and discontented, and their horses 
dead. High and low are so discouraged that you must not 
expect any service from them.' ' What can I do ? ' said the 
Duke feebly. ' I wish to have advice.' Thereupon Holland 
advised him to disband his army and let the men go where 
they would, and go himself to Portugal. The question 
then rose how the individuals in the army could get back to 
England. They had no ships, and the way through Spain 
and France was beset by enemies. There was nothing for 
it but to send envoys to the usurping King of Castile, and 
humbly crave that he would allow the remnants of the 
English host to pass through his territories, and would also 
obtain permission from his ally, the French king, that they 
might pass through his. The King of Castile graciously 
consented, in order to get rid of the English as soon and as 
cheaply as possible. Many of those who then set forth 
in scattered bands died on the way ; and although the actual 
fighting in Spain had not been much, not half of the 1500 
men-at-arms and 4000 archers, who had sailed from Plymouth 
in such gallant array, ever saw the shores of Old England 
again. It was an inglorious end to an ambitious expedition. 
Holland and his wife were the last to leave the Duke, who 
returned for a while to San lago, where he had to endure 
the merry jests of French pilgrims on his discomfiture, and 
then went to Oporto, and finally by sea to Bayonne. John 
Holland, leading a troop in some order, visited the King of 


Castile, who received him politely and gave him handsome 
mules for his journey, and he picked up some English who 
had been detained by sickness in Castilian towns. He rode 
across the Black Prince's famous battle-field of Najara, 
crossed the Pyrenees, after an interview with the King of 
Navarre, by the pass of Roncesvalles, and rode on to Bayonne, 
where he and his Countess remained for a time. He was 
home in England by St. George's Day, April 23, 1388, because 
he was at the Garter Banquet at Windsor. The Duke of 
Lancaster wrote repeatedly to England from Bayonne and 
Bordeaux asking for a new army with which to renew his 
Spanish venture, but in vain. ' Those,' says Froissart, 
' who had returned from Castile gave such accounts as 
discouraged others from going thither. They said, " The 
voyage was so long, a war with France would be much 
more advantageous. France has a rich country and 
temperate climate, with fine rivers ; but Castile has nothing 
but rOcks and high mountains, a sharp air, muddy rivers, 
bad meat, and wines so hot and harsh there is no drinking 
them. The inhabitants are poor and filthy, badly clothed 
and lodged, and quite different in their manners to us, so 
that it would be folly to go there. When you enter a large 
city or town you expect to find everything ; but you will 
meet with nothing but wines, lard, and empty coffers. It 
is quite the contrary in France ; for there we have many 
times found in the cities and towns, when the fortune of 
war delivered them into our hands, such wealth and riches 
as astonished us. It is such a war as this we ought to attend 
to, and not a war with Castile or Portugal, where there is 
nothing but poverty and loss to be suffered.' 

Such was the talk of the returned English, and no doubt 
their grumblings still further diminished the fast waning 
popularity of the royal house with which John Holland 
was so closely connected. None paid any attention now 


to the once glorious Duke of Lancaster, at Bordeaux, and 
his concerns. Not long afterwards, however, the quarrel 
about the Castilian throne was amicably compromised by 
the marriage of his daughter, the Lady Catherine, to the 
son and heir of the King of Castile. Thus one sister of 
Elizabeth Holland had become reigning Queen of Portugal 
and the other Queen-to-be of Spain. The Duke of Lan- 
caster's expedition had failed, had cost two or three thousand 
English lives, and had caused great misery to people in 
Galicia and Castile ; but, then, he had made two excellent 
matches for his daughters. 



* And yet time hath its revolutions ; there must be a period and an end to all 
things temporal — finis rerum — an end of names and dignities, and why not of 
De Vere ? For where is Bohun ? Where is Mowbray ? Where is Mortimer ? 
Nay, which is more and most of all, where is Plantagenet ? They are entombed 
in the urns and sepulchres of mortality. And yet let the name and dignity of De 
Vere stand so long as it pleaseth God.' — Chief Justice Crew in the Earldom of 
Oxford Judgment, temp. Charles II. 

Sir John Holland went to Spain in the summer of 1386, 
and returned home before the end of April 1388. Fierce 
political storms meanwhile swept over England. King 
Richard, in 1385, gave the dukedom of Gloucester to his 
uncle Thomas, and that of York to his uncle Edmund. He 
raised Michael de la Pole to be Earl of Suffolk, and con- 
ferred upon a far more high-born courtier, Robert De Vere, 
the offensively high-sounding title of Duke of Ireland, much 
to the irritation of the royal dukes. The Duke of Gloucester 
reformed the opposition party against the new favourites. 
Behind him were great lords of the Norman caste : Thomas 
de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham, Thomas Beauchamp, 
Earl of Warwick, and Richard Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, 
who was related to the Hollands, for his sister, Alice, had 
married the second Earl of Kent. These proud warrior 
nobles were backed by powerful Churchmen ; Courtenay, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, first cousin on the materna 
side to Henry of Bolingbroke, William of Wykeham, Bishop 
of Winchester, a moderate and prudent man, and Thomas 



Fitz-Alan, brother of Lord Arundel, then Bishop of Ely, 
and later Archbishop of York, and finally Archbishop 
of Canterbury, one of the most ambitious politicians of 
his time. These prelates supported Gloucester and his 
aristocratic allies, who were religious conservatives, while 
the Court party were deemed to be tainted by the doctrines 
of the Lollard preachers, men of Saxon breed, who not only 
were violent heretics in religion, but advocated the temporal 
spoliation of the Church. 

Parliament met in October 1386, was asked to vote 
supplies for a French expedition, and demanded that the 
King should first dismiss his Chancellor and Treasurer. 
Richard replied that he would not dismiss a kitchen 
scullion to please Parliament. The Duke of Gloucester 
and Bishop Arundel told him that, if he alienated himself 
from his people and would not be governed by the laws and 
by the advice of the Lords, the said Lords might, with the 
assent of the Commons, lawfully deprive him of his crown 
and confer it upon some near kinsman of the royal line. 
For want of means of resistance, Richard gave way, and 
the Earl of Suffolk was impeached by the Commons and 
sentenced to imprisonment. Gloucester's party then placed 
the King, who was now twenty, under the tutelage of certain 
Commissioners, who were to receive all the revenues of the 
Crown and to control all the expenditure. It was an early 
attempt at the system of Cabinet government which was 
perfected in the eighteenth century. 

In August 1387, however, Richard obtained from the 
judges a unanimous and obviously correct opinion that 
the instrument which he had signed under force and con- 
straint, appointing this commission, was illegal. Gloucester, 
Nottingham, and Arundel marched from Essex on London 
at the head of 40,000 men, and were joined at Waltham 
Cross by that discreet and time-observing son of the Duke 


of Lancaster, Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby. Gloucester 
and his friends entered London, and, in the Parliament held 
early in 1388, known by those whom it savagely oppressed 
as the ' Merciless,' and by its admirers as the 'Wonderful,' 
appealed of treason the Archbishop of York, the Duke of 
Ireland, the Earl of Suffolk, the Chief Justice Tressilian, 
Sir Nicholas Brember, Mayor of London, and others. The 
appellants were Gloucester, Henry of Bolingbroke, Arundel, 
Warwick, and Nottingham. 

The Duke of Ireland raised some troops in the west, but 
was defeated at Radcote Bridge by Gloucester and Henry 
of Bolingbroke, and fled beyond the seas, only to die at 
Louvain in Brabant, gored by a wild boar. The Earl of 
Suffolk fled to France, and the judges who had given the 
opinion as to the commission were sentenced to the horrible 
doom of exile for life in Ireland. The Chief Justice and 
the Mayor of London and five other leading courtiers, gentle- 
men of distinction, were hung. Sir Simon Burley, K.G., 
falsely accused of a plot to deliver Dover Castle to the French, 
was beheaded on May 5, 1388. This gentleman had been 
a kind of tutor or guardian of Richard in his childhood. 
Froissart says of him, ' God have mercy on his soul ! To 
write of his shameful death right sore displeaseth me, howbeit, 
I must needs do it to follow the history. Greatly I complain 
of his death, for, when I was young, I found him a gentle 
knight, sage and wise.' Henry, Earl of Derby, tried hard 
to save Burley's life, and quarrelled with his uncle of 
Gloucester over this ; for, says Holinshed, the Duke ' being 
a sore and right severe man, might not by any means be 
removed from his opinion and purpose, if he once resolved 
on any matter.' 

By these evil deeds the Court party was crushed, and, 
for a year, Gloucester reigned supreme in his nephew's 
kingdom. In May 1889, however, Richard succeeded in 


effecting a mild counter-revolution. He dismissed from 
his Council Gloucester and his friends, and held his own 
for some years with the support of a middle party. Thomas 
Arundel, now Archbishop of York, ceased to be Chancellor, 
and was replaced by the moderate William of Wykeham. 
In 1391 Arundel again received the Great Seal, and in 1396 
was made Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Affairs were nominally managed for the indolent and 
pleasure -loving King by his uncle the Duke of York, but 
the real manager at this time seems to have been the astute 
Henry of Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby, who made himself 
very popular by his personal charm and by his use of 

The Court's headquarters were mainly at this time at 
the royal palace at Eltham, near London, in the delightful 
county of Kent, and it was as magnificent as those times 
allowed. The King was young, fond of luxury and 
pageantry, and, as John Gower testifies in verse and John 
Froissart in prose, he was, like Charles I and other unfortunate 
kings, a discerning patron of art and literature. 

' I was in his court,' says Sir John Froissart, ' more 
than a quarter of a year together, and he made me good 
cheer because that in my youth, I was clerk and servant 
to the noble King Edward III, his grandfather, and with 
my lady Philippa of Hainault, Queen of England, his grand- 
mother, and when I departed from him it was at Windsor, 
and at my departing the King sent me by a knight of his 
called Sir John Golofer, a goblet of silver and gilt weighing 
two marks of silver, and within it a hundred nobles, by the 
which I am as yet the better and shall be as long as I live, 
wherefore I am bound to pray to God for his soul, and with 
much sorrow I write of his death.' 

The greatest poet of those days, Geoffrey Chaucer, also 
belonged to the Court. In May 1398 he was employed by 


the King on urgent and secret business in the kingdom, 
and in October 1398 received an annual grant of wine from 
the Port of London. As John Holland was then virtual 
First Minister, this shows that he must have liked and trusted 
the poet.-^ A Court of which Chaucer and well-experienced 
John Froissart approved — ^he must have seen and heard 
much there of the Hollands — had no doubt merits and charms. 
Holinshed says of Richard, ' He kept the greatest port and 
maintained the most plentiful house that ever any King 
of England did either before his time or after. For there 
resorted daily to his Court about ten thousand persons. 
They had meat and drink there allowed them. In his 
kitchen there were three hundred servitors. Of ladies, 
chamberlains, there were about three hundred at least. 
They wore gorgeous and costly apparel.' This way of life 
was distasteful to the bourgeoisie, who, with some justice, 
thought that good money was being wasted, though the 
taxation was probably the lightest in Europe, and to the 
rude country lords, who deemed it frenchified and effeminate. 
But it was a delightful court in which the Hollands lived, 
too delightful to last long in a still rough and feudal England. 
It was the most refined and civilised that England had 
until the charming early years of Charles I, for that of the 
virgin Elizabeth, though showy, was fundamentally coarse 
and parvenu. 

John Holland pursued a successful career. Immediately 
after his return, at request of the Commons in Parliament, 
in 1388, he was made Earl of Huntingdon. For the brother 
of a king, he arrived late at a peerage ; the honour had 
probably been deferred by the Stafford affair. We have 

^ Chaucer oq the occasion of his secret mission received a letter of protection, 
which he asked for on the ground that he was afraid of being molested by his rivals 
and enemies. Besides the wine he had a grant of £20 a year from Richard. After 
Richard's fall Henry IV continued these allowances, although the poet had accident- 
ally lost the letters patent which conferred them. 


an account of this creation by the monastic chronicler, 
Malvern. He says : 

' The second day of June, the King, sitting in full Parlia- 
ment, and all the temporal and spiritual lords standing 
round him, the Earl of Bolingbroke and the Earl of Salisbury 
brought my lord John Holland, brother of the King, 
apparelled as an Earl into Parliament, and Thomas Hobell, 
Esquire, carried the sword of the said Lord John Holland, 
and the King took the sword, and touched the said Lord 
John Holland and named him Earl of Huntingdon, and 
also gave him two thousand marks a year for the maintenance 
and support of his rank.' 

Also he received manors in several counties, mainly in 
Devon, Somerset, and Cornwall, and he obtained the forfeited 
house which had belonged to the Earl of Suffolk in Thames 
Street, London, and bore the curious name of ' The New 
June,' though he seems to have usually lodged in another 
house in the same locality called ' Cold Harbour.' He 
was appointed Admiral of the King's fleet from the Thames 
westward, and Governor of Brest in Brittany, the land 
where his late sister Joan had been Duchess. He maintained 
his prowess in the lists, and in 1390 went to a famous 
tournament in France. Three French gentlemen had under- 
taken to hold the lists for thirty days round about Whit- 
suntide against all comers. They were Huntingdon's old 
antagonist in Spain, Reginald de Roye, the young Boucicault, 
and the seigneur de St. Pye. The challengers announced 
they would pitch their tents close to Calais, and it was the 
opinion of the Earl of Huntingdon, Sir John Golofer, 
Sir William Clifton, Sir William Clynton, and other gentle- 
men whom Froissart names, and many other knights and 
squires, that this was a challenge to England, and that they 
should take part in this sport; for, said they, ' Surely the 
knights of France have done well, and like good companions. 


and we shall not fail them at their business.' So the Earl 
of Huntingdon, with over sixty knights and squires, passed 
the sea and lodged at Calais. 

It was, says Froissart, ' at the entering in of the jolly, 
fresh, lively month of May,' that the three young French 
knights came from Boulogne to the Abbey of St. Inglevert, 
and in a fair plain between that place and Calais, set up 
three light green pavilions, and at the entrance to each 
pavilion each knight hung up two shields with his arms. 
On May 21, the tournament began before a large audience 
from Calais and all the country round, with all the sound 
and bustle and colour which Chaucer describes in his 
' Knight's Tale.' The rule was, that each visitor could 
run six courses, selecting which of the French knights he 
pleased, for each. John Froissart no doubt was there, 
for it was near his country, and he would not have 
missed such a gathering and sight for all the world, 
and he describes every course that was run for four days 
with the utmost minuteness.^ It will be enough here to 
report shortly the feats of the Earl of Huntingdon, who 
opened the proceedings. John Holland was now a man of 
about thirty-eight, of noble appearance, tall, and at the 
maximum of his physical strength. He first sent his squire 
to touch the shield of Boucicault, who, ready mounted and 
armed, rode out of his pavilion. The two knights regarded 
each other, drew apart for a space, then ' spurred their 
horses and came together rudely.' Boucicault struck the 
English Earl on the shield, but the spear-head glided off 
and did no harm, and so they passed and turned and rested 
at their distances ; ' this course was greatly praised.' 

^ Froissart's wealth of detail, equal to any modem reporter's account of a 
prize fight, is here too much even for the leisurely Lord Berners, who has to omit 
many of the finer points in his translation. The eighteenth -century translator 
Johnes abbreviates it still more. Froissart, regarded as a historian, has, luckily 
for us, no artistic sense of proportion relatively to supposed importance of events. 


In the second course they met without damage to either 
side, and in the third their horses swerved, and they failed 
to meet. ' The Earl of Huntingdon, who had great desire 
to joust and was somewhat chafed, came to his place and 
awaited Boucicault, but Boucicault would not take his 
spear, and showed that he would run no more that day 
against the Earl.' Then Huntingdon sent his squire to touch 
the shield of St. Pye, who came out of his pavilion, and 
' when the Earl saw that he was ready, he spurred his horse, 
and St. Pye likewise ; they couched their spears, but at the 
meeting their horses crossed, and the Earl was unhelmed. 
Then he returned to his squires and ' was rehelmed and took 
again his spear,' and St. Pye his, and then they ran again 
and ' met each other with their spears in the midst of their 
shields ' so that each of them was nearly carried out of the 
saddle, but by the grip of their legs saved themselves, and 
so returned and took breath. ' Sir John Holland, who had 
great desire to do honourably,took again his spear and spurred 
his horse, and when the Lord of St. Pye saw him coming, he 
dashed forth his horse to encounter him ; each struck the 
other on the helmet so that the fire flashed out, in which the 
Lord of St. Pye was unhelmed, and so they passed forth and 
came to their own places. This course was greatly praised ; 
and both French and English said that those three lords, 
the Earl of Huntingdon, Sir Boucicault, and the Lord of 
St. Pye, had done well their devoirs, without any damage to 
each other. Again the Earl desired, for love of his lady, 
to have another course, but he was refused ; then he went 
out of the rank to give place to others, for he had run all of 
his six courses well and valiantly, so that he had laud and 
honour of all parties.' Huntingdon had not, however, 
touched the shield of Reginald de Roye, perhaps he was 
dissatisfied with that device of an unlaced helmet which he 
had experienced in Spain, or perhaps, having tested de 


Roye's strength before, he did not care, so near to Dover, 
to risk his dignity as brother to the King. But if he had 
been allowed his request for one extra course he would, 
perhaps, have run it against de Roye. In the rest of that 
day, however, and on the three following days, Sir Reginald 
met several English knights and had decidedly the better 
of most of them, for, says Froissart, ' he was one of the best 
3 ousters in the realm of France ; also he lived in amom-s 
with a young lady which availed him in all his business,' 
by increasing his spirit and daring, as such amours ever do. 
On the third day he ran no less than five courses against 
Sir John Arundel, who was ' young and fresh, a jolly dancer 
and singer,' with very even results, lover meeting lover. 
This Arundel sounds like the Young Squire in Chaucer's 

* Prologue ' : 

Singing he was, or fluting all the day. 
He was as fresh as is the month of May. 

On the fourth day Reginald de Roye sent a Bohemian knight 
of the Queen's retinue clean off his horse in the second course, 
and almost left him for dead. Possibly this was ' Sir Nicies ' 
who was concerned in the affair at Beverley five years earlier. 

* The Englishmen,' says Froissart, ' were not displeased,' 
because the German had ridden his first course against 
Boucicault unfairly, which had caused much talk and com- 
motion. By the rules of the game, the Bohemian knight 
had forfeited his horse and arms, if Boucicault had chosen 
to press his right. As it was, he was adjudged to lose his 
option as to antagonist, and the umpires selected for his 
second course the formidable de Roye, and after this 
encounter, for good cause, the unnerved and unpopular 
German ran no more. When their courses had all been run, 
the Earl of Huntingdon and the other Englishmen took 
courteous leave, thanking the French gentlemen for the 


noble sport they had given, crossed to Dover, and rode up 
to London by the old Roman highway, not forgetting to pay 
their devoirs at St. Thomas' shrine in Canterbury. Here, 
also, John Holland must have looked at the new and 
beautiful monument and effigy of his step-father, the Black 
Prince, to the right of the shrine, with helmet, sword, 
gauntlets, and surcoat hung above it. 

In radiant May weather and the gay air of Kent, this 
gallant company rode in merry groups, between fresh green 
woods and pastures dotted with sheep and white with 
flowering thorn, meadows golden with buttercups, and 
through old villages with admiring folk at doors and 
windows, while the levels of the sea, the Medway, and the 
Thames gleamed to their right all the fifty miles from the 
top of Boughton Hill to London. The three French knights 
stayed on the fair green plain by St. Inglevert for the residue 
of their thirty days' challenge, and then rode over the chalk 
downs to Boulogne, and by the water meadows of the Somme 
through Abbeville and Amiens, and so leisurely to Paris, 
' to see the King and the Duke of Touraine and other lords 
that were at Paris at that time, who made them great cheer, 
as reason required, for they had valiantly borne themselves 
whereby they achieved great honour of the King and all 
the realm of France.' 

This same year Huntingdon appeared in a grand tourna- 
ment held at Smithfield, which was attended by gentlemen 
from France, Germany, and Flanders. Anyone who had 
been in the then fashionable East End of London on the 
Sunday after Michaelmas, might have seen, about 3 p.m.,- 
issuing out of the Tower, threescore coursers apparelled for 
the jousts, and on each a squire riding at a soft pace, and 
next threescore ladies mounted sideways on fair palfreys, 
and richly apparelled, each leading by a silver chain a knight 
ready equipped for the tournament. ' Thus they came 


riding along the streets of London with a great number 
of trumpets and other minstrels, and so came to Smithfield, 
where the Queen of England and other ladies and damsels 
were ready in chambers richly adorned to see the jousts, 
and the King was with the Queen,' Count Waleran de 
St. Pol, brother-in-law of the Hollands, on the first day won 
the prize for the visitors, and the Earl of Huntingdon that 
for the English challengers. On the second day the Count 
of Ostrevant won for the visitors and Sir Hugh Spencer 
for the challengers. Banquets and balls were given by 
the King, the Duke of Lancaster, and the Bishop of London, 
and at the end of this festive week there were great enter- 
tainments at Windsor. 

Huntingdon was one of those sent in 1392 to treat of 
peace at Amiens, and in 1394 he was made Lord Great 
Chamberlain of England. In this year died Queen 
Anne, whose good-humoured plain face may be seen on 
her tomb at Westminster. King Richard, says Froissart, 
was inconsolable, but soon afterwards, he adds, the light- 
hearted King ' took the road for Wales, and hunted all 
the way to forget the loss of his queen." His uncles of 
York and Gloucester were with him, and so were his half- 
brothers Kent and Huntingdon, and other lords in great 

In this same year, 1394, Huntingdon obtained a licence 
to travel abroad for two years. In June of this year, the 
Pope granted a plenary indulgence of sins to John Holland, 
Earl of Huntingdon, going with some persons in his company 
to fight against the Turks and other enemies of Christ. 
He went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Saint Catherine 
of Mount Sinai, induced by love of travel, and thinking, 
possibly, that his past life required religious expiation. 
According to Froissart, he passed through Paris on his 
way out, and was there handsomely received by the French 


King, and heard that there was to be a war in Hungary 
between the King of that country and the Turks under 
Sultan Bajazet, to which many French knights were going, 
among them famous Sir Reginald de Roye, his old anta- 
gonist in Spain. Holland told his French friends that he 
would not fail to be there, and that he would return from 
Jerusalem through Hungary. Whether he actually did 
so, there is no record, but as he was at Eltham Palace in 
1395, on the occasion of the visit of Robert the Hermit 
to King Richard, he would not have had time for a 
campaign in Hungary. A pilgrimage to Jerusalem and 
Sinai then took the best part of a year to accomplish.^ 

When English and French gentlemen were not engaged 
in fighting each other, they frequently went on such crusades 
in order to keep their hand in, and to make up accounts 
with Heaven. Chaucer's knight, a contemporary of John 
Holland, had been, says his creator, in Turkey, Spain, 
Prussia, Russia, Lithuania, fighting against various infidels, 
whereas his son, the young squire, had only as yet been in 
Flanders, Artois, and Picardy, like many of our young squires 
in the days of George V. Thus Henry of Derby M'ent in 
1394j with a thousand English knights and squires and 
their followers, to assist the noble and glorious Order of 
Teutonic Knights to fight against the stubborn heathen 
of Lithuania. The Hungarian war ended in complete 
victory for the Sultan Bajazet at Nicopolis, and most of 
the numerous and gallant French gentlemen who fought 
on the Christian side were slain or captured. 

John Holland two years later contemplated an Italian 
expedition. In 1396 Boniface IX, the Pope whom the 
English supported, wrote to the Archbishops of Canterbury 
and York concerning ' the purpose of John Holland, Earl 
of Huntingdon, the King's brother, to come into Italy 

1 Dates even make it doubtful whether Holland went to Jerusalem after all. 


and other parts for the extermination of heretics, rebels, 
and usurpers of cities and lands of the Pope and the Roman 
Church,' as the Pope had learned from the Earl's letters 
and messengers. He directed the Archbishops to give to 
the Earl for that purpose, a grant from ecclesiastical first- 
fruits in their provinces. This crusade was directed against 
adherents of the anti-pope. Penitents who joined in the 
expedition were to have the ' usual Holy Land indulgence 
and remission of sins.' Huntingdon had probably been in 
Rome on his way to or from Palestine, and had there 
made the acquaintance of the Pope. In March 1397, 
Pope Boniface appointed the Earl of Huntingdon to be 
' Gonfalonier of the Holy Roman Church,' and Captain - 
General of all men-at-arms fighting in that service. 
If the Earl had taken up this appointment, he might 
have had some fine adventures, and might also have 
avoided a great disaster, as he said himself in the last 
hour of his life. Unhappily his attention was distracted 
by home politics. 

When he returned from his Eastern travels, new storms 
darkened the sky. His father-in-law, the Duke of Lancaster, 
had violently quarrelled with his younger brother, the Duke 
of Gloucester. Lancaster, after the death of his second 
wife. King Pedro's daughter, married Katherine Swynford, his 
former mistress and mother by him of the Beauforts. The 
Duke of York cared little, but the Duke and Duchess of 
Gloucester were furious, and the Duchess Eleanor, who 
came of the proud race of Bohun, refused to give to her 
new sister-in-law the social precedence to which Katherine 
was now entitled as legitimate wife of an elder brother. 
The Countess of Derby, another de Bohun, and the Countess 
of Arundel, very great ladies both by birth and marriage, 
were also indignant. Then, the unpopularity of the King 
was increasing, and his quarrel with his uncle of Gloucester 
threatened to burst into new flame. 


The great question of the day was that of peace or war 
with France. King Richard loved peace and hated war ; 
all his earliest memories were of France ; in tastes and 
character he was more French than English. His tastes 
were artistic, not warlike. Little cared he that almost 
all the Edwardian conquests had been lost. His uncle, 
John of Lancaster, also desired peace, because, according 
to Froissart, he thought that continued war would lead 
to French invasions of the domains of his son-in-law, the 
King of Castile. The amiable Duke of York was also pacific. 
He preferred sport to war. But Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, 
was entirely set upon war and re-conquest, and he headed 
a formidable party. Froissart says : 

' Many thought that the Commonalty of England were 
more inclined to war than peace, for in the time of the good 
King Edward and his son, the Prince of Wales, they had 
so many victories over the French, and so great conquests 
and so much money from ransoms, and payments by towns 
and countries, that they were become marvellously rich, 
and many, who were no gentlemen by birth, by their daring 
and valiant adventures, won so much gold and silver that 
they became noble, and rose to great honour, and so such 
as followed after would fain follow the same life. . . . 

' The Duke of Gloucester and divers other lords, knights, 
and squires were of the same opinion as the Commons, 
and desired war rather than peace to sustain their estates. 
The King and the Duke of Lancaster would fain have had 
peace ; howbeit, they would not displease the Commons 
of England.' 

Young men with fortunes to make, and older men with 
fortunes to mend, and they who loved war for its own sake, 
and the mercantile class who wished to see French gold 
and silver once more roll into England and send up prices, 
were all for the Duke of Gloucester. In the long war, the 


English had plunder and glory, the French defeat, misery, 
and spoliation. Richard II, by wishing to make peace 
with France, came against the presentiment of a young 
and vigorous nation instinctively conscious that its eventual 
mission was to annex and rule a large portion of this planet. 
James II was dethroned long after not, perhaps, more 
because he was a Roman Catholic, than because he wished 
to keep peace with France, now our friend, but then our 
great rival. Men in the eighteenth century sympathised 
with this view. Guthrie in his History published in 1747 
says of the reign of Edward IV : ' The generous wines of 
France and Italy flowed round the English board and drowned 
every sentiment of that public jealousy of France, which 
ought to be the ruling passion of every English King.' 
Richard, the Hollands, and their friends were the more 
civilised people, but Gloucester was on the line of the 
future, for the main line of English history is the pursuit 
of dominion. 

The English used to say that ' so long as we hold Calais, 
we have the key of France under our girdle.' Precisely 
because the French wished to recover Calais, the negotiations 
broke down, and those held in May 1393 at Leulinghen in 
Flanders between the royal Dukes of Lancaster, Gloucester, 
Burgundy, and Berri, also failed to arrange more than a 
four years' truce. The French complained that Gloucester 
was so mysterious that it was impossible to understand 
what he really intended or wanted. 

At this time appeared ' Robert the Hermit,' originally 
a squire of Normandy, and by surname le Menuot, about 
fifty years old, who, on his return from Palestine, had 
seen at sea a vision commanding him to exhort the 
French and English kings to make peace, and to denounce 
Heaven's judgment upon those who continued to make 
war. He was well received by the French King, but the 


English war party said that his vision was a trick of the 
French, whom they always accused of duplicity and sublety. 
Robert the Hermit was sent on to England by the French 
King, with the Count of St. Pol, in 1395, and had an audience 
at Eltham of King Richard, with whom were the Duke of 
Lancaster and the Earls of Huntingdon and Salisbury. 
The King sent Robert on to Essex to preach peace to his 
stubborn uncle of Gloucester, who had prevented its con- 
clusion at Amiens and Leulinghen. The Hermit, by his 
own invitation, stayed for two days with the Duke and 
Duchess at Pleshy Castle, The Duke condescended to 
explain to him at length the reasons for war against the 
perfidious French, who had, he said, failed to observe the 
conditions of the peace made at Bretigny in 1360. The 
Hermit, in reply, reminded the Duke of the Crucified, said 
that the duty of Christians was to forgive offences, and told 
the Duke that those who opposed peace would dearly answer 
for it in this life or in the next. 

' How know you that ? ' asked the surly Duke. 

' Sir,' replied the Hermit, ' all that I say cometh by divine 
inspiration, by a vision that came to me as I returned from 
Syria upon the sea near the island of Rhodes.' 

Afterwards, King Richard made Robert the Hermit 
' good cheer at Windsor, for love that the French King had 
sent him, and because he was wise and eloquent, and of 
sweet words and honest.' At his departing he gave him 
great gifts, and so did the Dukes of Lancaster and York 
and the Earls of Huntingdon and Salisbury. It is to the 
credit of John Holland that he was kind to good Robert 
the Hermit. Both of the Hermit's hosts, the Duke who 
desired war, and the King who desired peace, came to 
violent ends, so that the ways of Heaven, as ever, remain 

The political quarrel was brought to a head by Richard's 


second marriage, in October 1396, with Isabelle, daughter 
of King Charles of France, a child only eight years old, and 
by the more permanent treaty with France which accom^ 
panied it. The Earls of Nottingham and Rutland went 
to Paris in the spring of 1396 to inspect the little Princess 
and discuss the matter with the French Court. On their 
return they rode so fast to give news to the impatient Richard 
that they came from Sandwich to Windsor in a day and a 
half. Then the French King sent over the Count of St„ 
Pol, whose wife was Huntingdon's lovely sister, Maud 
Holland, to treat secretly of the marriage and peace. St. 
Pol found the King in his palace on Eltham's pleasant hill, 
and with him the Duke of Lancaster and the Earls 
of Kent and Huntingdon. It was an inner family circle. 
Richard told St. Pol that he, himself, was all for peace 
with France, but could not act alone, that his brothers, 
the Hollands, and his uncles of Lancaster and York, were 
also inclined thereto ; ' but,' he added, ' I have another 
uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who is a right perilous and 
marvellous man.' He said that Gloucester was so secretive 
that no one could tell what he intended, but that he had with 
him the Londoners and many lords and knights, and that, 
in order to prevent peace with France, he would probably 
raise a rebellion, and in that event he, Richard, would lose 
his realm. St. Pol replied, ' Sir, if you suffer this, they will 
destroy you. It is said in France that the Duke of Gloucester 
intends nothing but to prevent peace and renew the war 
again, and that, httle by little, he draws the hearts of the 
young men to his side, for they desire war rather than peace, 
so that the ancient wise men, if war begins to stir, would 
not be heard or believed; therefore, sir, provide rather betimes 
than too late ; it were better you had them in danger than 
they you.' St. Pol advised the King to keep Gloucester 
soothed by fair words and gifts until the marriage was 


completed, and thereupon the French King would aid 
him to suppress any rebellion. The Earl of Huntingdon 
said, ' Sir, my fair brother of St. Pol hath showed you 
the truth, therefore take good advice in this matter.' 
Richard said to St. Pol, ' In God's name, you say well, and 
so will I do.' 

It was arranged that the Kings of France and England 
should confer at St. Omer, and Richard and his retinue 
soon travelled down the famous old road to Dover and across 
the Channel. Terms of peace were discussed, but Richard 
cared little what they might be, so that he might have his 
little Princess. He showed much more interest, it was 
noticed, in the arrangements for the ritual of the marriage 
than in the terms of peace. However, he had to return to 
England to obtain the assent of Parliament ; but was soon 
back at Calais for the marriage, which was a most brilliant 
and artistic affair. The Duke of Gloucester was reluctantly 
there by the King's request, but he was rude and taciturn 
with the French. Froissart gives an account of the marriage 
banquet, at which the Duke of Burgundy, a ' merry man,' 
made jests in daring French style which diverted the 
company. One of the guests was Mademoiselle Jeanne de 
St. Pol, then about fifteen, the daughter of Maud Holland, 
Countess de St. Pol, and half -niece of the King. The French 
King said jestingly that he wished his daughter Isabelle 
were the age of our fair cousin here, for then she would be 
a better match for the King of England.' Isabelle was, 
indeed, much too young, since it was important to obtain 
a direct heir to the throne as soon as possible. 

The King and Queen and wedding guests returned to 
Eltham, receiving great entertainments and gifts by the way, 
especially from the Archbishop and city of Canterbury. 
The Earl of Huntingdon had already given his little half- 
sister-in-law a 'fermaillet' (?) set with a great diamond in 


the middle, three fine rubies, and three great pearls, said 
to be worth 18,000 francs, and at Eltham he also gave her 
a gold chain a foot and a half long. The Duke of Gloucester 
also, sulkily and reluctantly, no doubt, gave some handsome 

These family transactions were the last in which Thomas 
Holland, second Earl of Kent, was engaged. He died in the 
following year, 1397, on April 25, and thus escaped the 
revolution which brought about the temporary fall of the 
Hollands. He was buried at Bourne, or Brunne, in Lincoln- 
shire, a small priory of eleven canons, which had been 
founded by a Lord de Wake in the twelfth century, and 
which he had himself endowed with an alien priory. The 
inquisition made after his death shows that he left very 
large landed possessions scattered over many parts of 
England, more especially in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Essex, 
and Kent. He left two sons, Thomas and Edmund,^ and 
six daughters. His eldest son, Thomas, who now became 
third Earl of Kent of the Holland line, was a gallant and 
promising youth. 

The young Earl married Joan Stafford, daughter of the 
Ralph de Stafford, whom his uncle, John Holland, had slain 
in 1386. This, unless it was a pure love affair, shows that 
the Stafford feud did not extend so strongly to the Kent 
branch of the Hollands. 

The Duke of Gloucester could not forgive the truce and 
marriage alliance with France. He was a rough and rude 
warrior, thoroughly despised his unwarlike and artistic, 

^ An interesting inventory of all these gifts is extant, made when the girl was 
sent back to France after the death of Richard. By treaty she was to keep all 
her personal possessions. 

2 The second Earl of Kent had also two other sons who died young. There is 
extant a record of the banquet given at Oxford when one of them, Richard Holland, 
took his degree or something of that kind in February 1395. It cost £67, a great 
sum in those days. 


and pleasure-loving and frenchified nephew, and firmly- 
adhered to the claim of his house to the throne of France. 
It was a great opportunity, he said, to invade France now 
that so many of the flower of the French nobility had perished 
in the war of 1396 against the Turks, and he undertook to 
raise 6000 men-at-arms and 100,000 archers in England for 
that purpose. He thought war with France the true policy, 
because plunder of so wealthy a country made the English 
rich, and, on the other hand, peace made them indolent 
and enervated. Money raised by taxes, he said, instead of 
being used for war with France, which brought rich returns, 
was squandered by the Court, and went God knows where. 
The King talked about expeditions to subdue Ireland, but 
there was no gain in that, for ' the Irish are a wicked people 
with a poor country, and he who should conquer it one year 
would lose it the next.' ' Lackingay, Lackingay,' the Duke 
said to his confidential retainer, ' all you have just heard me 
say, know to be the truth.' 

When Richard II, in the summer of 1397, gave up Brest 
to its rightful owner (and his own brother-in-law), the Duke 
of Brittany, who came to England that July, for 120,000 
francs in gold, the Duke of Gloucester said to him before 
others, ' Your Grace ought to put your body in great pain 
to win a stronghold or town by feat of arms before you take 
upon you to sell and deliver a town gotten by the man- 
hood and strong hand and policy of your noble ancestors.' 
Richard, who was usually, says Froissart, ' humble and meek 
towards the Duke,' said sharply, 'What is that you say, 
uncle ? ' Gloucester repeated his words, and Richard said 
passionately, ' Think you that I am a fool or a merchant 
to sell my land ? No, by St. John the Baptist, no ! But 
my cousin, the Duke of Brittany, having paid the sums 
for which the town and haven of Brest were engaged to 
me, reason and good conscience required that I should 


restore it.' ^ Richard's displeasure was increased by the rude 
manners of this uncle, who appeared at Court when he was not 
invited, and did not attend when he was summoned, and 
showed his contempt in every possible way. The King 
heard that Gloucester talked of putting the crown once 
more in commission by force, and had said that the Earls 
of Arundel and Warwick and many barons and prelates 
were ready to uphold him in this enterprise. The Duke of 
Gloucester was undoubtedly stirring up the Londoners on 
the subject of Customs duties, and wasteful expenditure 
of the receipts on idle feasts and dances. They sent a 
deputation to Eltham with a petition on this subject. 

At this time the Dukes of Lancaster and York, well 
aware of the storm rising in London and elsewhere, thought 
well to dissemble their opposition to their imperious younger 
brother of Gloucester, and came seldom to Court, so that 
Richard was left almost alone with the Hollands and their 
close allies. Froissart says that ' there were none of the 
King's servants but feared the Duke of Gloucester, and 
would gladly that he had been dead, they cared not how.' 
When the Duke did come to the Court, he regarded these 
elegant young men with fierce, contemptuous, and menacing 
looks. Sir Thomas Percy resigned his post as seneschal 
because he thought it dangerous to hold office about the 
King, and others told Richard that it was a perilous thing 
to serve him, and that they were running the risk of being 
put to death by Gloucester like Sir Simon Burley and others 
nine years earlier. John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, 

^ The Duke's remark was provoked by seeing soldiers of the Brest garrison back 
in England with no wages and out of work. Brest had been granted by the Duke 
of Brittany to the King of England in 1378, to hold against the French, the Duke 
receiving £1000 and the rents from some crowu manors in Wiltshire. The 
castle was to be given back to the Duke or his heirs after the war was ended unless 
the Duke died heirless. Thus it was hardly a case of paying off a mortgage, but 
neither was it the case of the sale of something which belonged absolutely to the 
English Crown. The documents in Rymer's Fcedera show how the matter stood. 


leader of the King's party, shared these alarms and took 
advantage of them. He knew that Gloucester's most in- 
timate adviser was a certain gentleman (probably the above- 
named Lackingay) who had formerly been in the household 
of the Earl of Stafford, and directly attached to the young 
Ralph Stafford whom he had slain in that encounter in the 
dark lane near Beverley. He knew also that he had never 
been forgiven that offence by the great ring of Norman 
families. Richard now heard of an elaborate plot. The 
Duke of Gloucester, it was said, had arranged a meeting at 
Arundel Castle between himself and the Earls of Arundel 
and Warwick, Arundel's brother, Fitz-Alan, Archbishop of 
Canterbury, the Abbot of St. Albans, the Prior of West- 
minster, and others. They did meet at Arundel, swore 
faith to each other, heard mass celebrated by the Archbishop, 
and resolved to take and imprison the King and the Dukes 
of Lancaster and York, and to hang, draw, and quarter the 
other lords of the Council, including, no doubt, the two 
Hollands. This was to be done in August. But the Earl 
of Nottingham, Earl Marshal, who had married Arundel's 
daughter, and, in the affairs of 1387-1388, had been one 
leader of the Gloucester party, revealed their whole plot 
to the King. Now Huntingdon decided to strike. 

Richard was at Westminster signing documents on July 11. 
A day or two later he dined, says Holinshed, ' at the house 
of his brother, the Earl of Huntingdon, in the street behind 
All Hallows Church, upon the banks of the River Thames, 
which was a right fair and stately house.' This thrilling 
dinner, full of youth and fiery emotion, took place on 
July 12 or 13, 1397. The Duke of Gloucester and the 
Earls of Arundel and Warwick had been invited, and the 
intention had been to arrest them then and there. But 
only Warwick had come to London, and he was arrested 
that day at the Chancellor's house near Temple Bar» 


Gloucester had excused himself on the ground of health, 
and Arundel had sent no excuse, but had gone to his castle at 
Reigate. So the leaders of the Court party dined without these 
guests at Lord Huntingdon's that morning. Holinshed says : 

' After dinner the King gave his Council to understand 
the matter, by whose advice it was agreed that the King 
should assemble forthwith what power he might conveniently 
make of men and archers, and straightway take horse, 
accompanied with his brother, the Earl of Huntingdon, and 
the Earl Marshal. Hereupon at six o'clock in the afternoon, 
just the hour when they used to go to supper, the King 
mounted on horseback and rode his way, whereof the 
Londoners had great marvel.' 

The King and his friends probably supped and had a 
long sleep or rest at Havering-atte -Bower, a royal hunting 
lodge in the wooded country of which Epping and Hainault 
forests are remains, between London and Pie shy, about 
twenty miles from the latter. Havering-atte-Bower stands 
on charmingly undulated rising ground, whence is a wide 
prospect south-east, with an occasional gleam of the distant 
Thames and the Kentish hills beyond. Very early in the 
July morning, they rode on through slumberous Essex 
villages, and at last came in sight of the great Norman tower 
built high upon the ancient, perhaps British, mound which 
still exists at Fleshy. A wide park or sporting domain was 
at that time attached to the castle. The King then bade 
Lord Huntingdon ride on fast and tell the Duke that the 
King was coming to speak with him. Holinshed continues : 

' The Earl with ten persons in his company . . . came 
to the house, and entering into the court, asked if the Duke 
were at home, and, understanding by a gentlewoman who 
made him answer, that the Duke and Duchess were yet in 
bed, he besought her to go to the Duke and show him that 
the King was coming at hand to speak with him ; and 


forthwith came the King with a competent number of men- 
at-arms, and a great company of archers, riding into the 
base court, his trumpets sounding before him. The Duke 
herewith came down into the base court, where the King 
was, having no other apparel upon him but his shirt and 
a cloak or mantle cast about his shoulders, and with humble 
reverence said his Grace was welcome, asking of the lords 
how it chanced they came so early and sent him no word 
of their coming. The King herewith courteously requested 
him to go and make him ready and appoint his horses to 
be saddled, for that he must needs ride with him a little way 
and confer with him of business. The Duke went up again 
into his chamber and put upon him his clothes, and the 
King, alighting from his horse, fell in talk with the Duchess 
and her ladies. The Earl of Huntingdon and divers others 
followed the Duke into the hall, and there stayed for him 
until he had put on his raiment. And within a little they 
came forth again all together into the base court, where the 
King was delighting with the Duchess in pleasant talk, 
whom he willed now to return to her lodging again, for he 
might stay no longer, and so took his horse again, and the 
Duke likewise. But shortly after that the King and all 
his company were gone forth of the gate of the base court, 
he commanded the Earl Marshal to apprehend the Duke, 
which incontinently was done.' 

Froissart gives a somewhat different version of this 
incident. He says : 

' One day the King in manner as going a'hunting rode 
from Havering atte Bower, twenty miles from London, in 
Essex, and within twenty miles of Pleshy, where the Duke 
of Gloucester held his house. After dinner the King departed 
from Havering with a small company and came to Pleshy 
about five o'clock ; the weather was fair and hot.^ So the 

^ Froissart may have heard of five o'clock and have mistaken 5 a.m. for 5 p.m. 


King came suddenly thither about the time that the Duke 
of Gloucester had supped. For he was but a small eater, 
nor eat never long at dinner nor at supper. When he heard 
of the King's coming, he went to meet him in the middle 
of the court, and so did the Duchess and her children, and 
they welcomed the King, and the King entered the hall, 
and so into a chamber. Then a board was spread for the 
King's supper. The King sat not long and said at his first 
coming, " Fair uncle, cause five or six horses of yours to 
be saddled, for I will pray you to ride with me to London, 
as to-morrow the Londoners will be before us. And there 
will also be mine uncles of Lancaster and York, with divers 
other noblemen. For upon the Londoners' requests I will 
be ordered according to your counsel. And command your 
steward to follow you with your train to London, where 
they shall find you." The Duke, who thought no evil, lightly 
agreed to the King. And when the King had supped 
and risen, everything was ready. The King then took 
leave of the Duchess and her children, and leapt on horse- 
back, and the Duke with him, accompanied by only seven 
servants, three squires, and four yeomen. So they rode a 
great pace, and the King talked by the way with his uncle 
and he with him, and they took the way of Bondeley to 
avoid Brentwood and the London common highway, and 
so approached to Stratford by the River of Thames. When 
the King came near to the ambush which he had laid, then 
he rode froin his uncle a great pace and left him somewhat 
behind him. Then suddenly the Earl Marshal with his 
band came galloping after the Duke and overtook him 
and said, " Sir, I arrest you in the King's name." The 
Duke saw well he was betrayed and began to call after the 
King. I cannot tell whether the King heard him or not, 
but he turned not, but rode forth faster than he did before.' 
Froissart says, in a later passage, that the arrest v/as 


effected between ten and eleven o'clock at night. A ship 
was lying ready in the neighbouring Thames ; the Duke 
was placed in it and carried off to Calais, where Nottingham 
was Governor. 

Holinshed was a careful and conscientious historian, 
and his story must be based upon some written contemporary 
record which he considered to be trustworthy.^ Otherwise, 
he would not have departed from the story in Froissart's 
Chronicle, which was before him. As a rule, when there are 
two versions, Holinshed gives both. On the other hand, 
Froissart's story is also circumstantial, and he was living 
and well informed. He had been for three months in England 
at Richard's Court only three years earlier, and must have 
had correspondents there who told him, though perhaps 
with some misunderstanding, how things happened. The 
two versions, using probabilities, might be reconciled in the 
following way. 

It was important, from the view of Huntingdon and 
his friends, that the descent upon Fleshy should be so effected 
that no one, seeing the movements of the King, should ride 
on fast ahead and warn the Duke. Otherwise the Duke 
would have probably left the castle and raised the country, 
and there would have been that fatal business, a ' coup 
d'etat manque,' as when Charles I tried to arrest the five 
members. It was all-important that the arrests of Gloucester, 
Arundel, and Warwick should nearly coincide. It is there- 
fore natural that, as Holinshed says, the ride to Fleshy 
should have been made by night. But they had not to 
ride from 6 p.m. till 5 or 6 a.m. to cover less than forty miles, 
so that, as Froissart says, they did probably break the 
journey at Havering-atte -Bower, though not to dine, but^to 
sup and sleep awhile. This also had the advantage that 

^ The contemporary Walsingliam merely says that Gloucester was arrested 
by force at Pleshy and sent to Calais. 


to go in the evening to a royal hunting lodge gave a good 
answer to awkward questions, since there was the appearance 
of an intention to hunt next day. In the next place, it 
was important that the arrest of the Duke should not be 
known by the public before he was safely lodged on board 
ship on his way to Calais, because Essex and London 
swarmed with his adherents, and there might have been 
an attempt at rescue. Probably, therefore, the arrest 
was made, not as Holinshed says, just outside Fleshy in 
the morning, but as Froissart says, late that night at 
Stratford near the river and the waiting ship. The party 
would naturally avoid travelling along the crowded high 
road and in broad daylight. Very likely they were back 
at Havering by ten o'clock in the morning, dined and supped 
there, and waited till dark, with careful watch of the Duke, 
who must have known by then that he was virtually a 
prisoner, and then joined the high road at Romford. Havering 
is about two miles north of Romford, and some twenty 
miles from Fleshy by the lesser roads. It is not clear what 
place Froissart means by ' Bondeley,' but the King's 
party may have travelled to Havering by way of Ongar, 
avoiding, as he says, Brentwood and the great road. 

In any case, it is clear that the Duke was drawn from 
his Essex stronghold by a well-acted lie in the mouth of 
the King, supported by visible force, and was arrested by 
his old and faithless poUtical follower, the Earl of Nottingham, 
the unworthy object, as * banished Norfolk,' of some of the 
most beautiful lines of Shakespeare. 

The Earl of Arundel was arrested on the evening of 
July 16, by the Earls of Kent and Rutland. He was induced 
to give himself up by a promise made to his brother, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, that the Earl should suffer 
no bodily harm, at least so it is said by a dubious authority. 
Warwick had been already arrested. Thus the three leaders 


of the opposition were safe in custody, to the consternation 
of their rebel party, which was so strong in and around 
the City of London. It was not known who else of those 
who had taken part in Gloucester's movement ten years 
earlier might not be arrested. On July 15, a Royal Pro- 
clamation was addressed to the Sheriffs of London and 
Middlesex to allay these fears. It ran : 

' We have had arrested and detained in safe custody, 
Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, Richard, Earl of Arundel, and 
Thomas, Earl of Warwick ; on account of the very many ex- 
tortions, oppressions, and other misdeeds perpetrated by them 
against Us and Our People, and for the peace and security of 
our People.' The Sheriffs were directed to inform their counties 
that the arrests had been made, not only with the assent 
of the Earls of Rutland, Kent, and Huntingdon, the Earl 
Marshal, and the Earls of Somerset and Salisbury, ' but also 
with the assent of our most dear uncles, John, Duke of 
Acquitaine and Lancaster, and Edmund, Duke of York, 
and our most dear cousin, Henry, Earl of Derby,' and that 
no one who had been implicated in the rebellious movements 
of Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick would, if they remained 
quiet, be molested. There were, however, assemblings 
in Sussex, where Arundel was a great landholder, and on 
July 28, an order was sent to the Justices of the Peace in 
that county to arrest agitators. 

John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, was, no doubt, the 
soul of all these vigorous proceedings. With good right, 
apart, that is, from Christian morality, he struck his foes 
when they were nearly, but not quite, ready to strike him. 
Like Stafford's honest archer who shot his favourite squire, 
he would much rather they died than he should. Mediaeval 
politics in their ethics resembled modern war. Gloucester 
and his allies would certainly have given no more quarter 
to the Hollands than the Hollands gave to them. Nine 


years earlier, these fierce partisans enforced the unjust 
death of the brave and virtuous Sir Simon Burley, who was 
a friend of Huntingdon's mother, had been made a Knight 
of the Garter by Edward III, had served the Black Prince 
in war and peace, and had been a tutor to Richard in his 
childhood. Then the good Queen Anne, daughter of the 
proudest house in Europe, an Emperor's sister, was, it is 
said, three hours with Gloucester entreating mercy for her 
friend in vain, and Gloucester told King Richard that ' if 
he wished to be king this must be done.' Richard II con- 
sented to the death of Burley for the same reason that 
Charles I deplorably consented to that of the Earl of Strafford, 
weakness in face of force. No doubt this Thomas, Duke 
of Gloucester, was, as Polydore Virgil says, ' vir ferocissimus 
et praecipitis ingenii.' He deserved well to expiate, by 
his own death, his deliberate and cold-blooded terrorist 
crime in causing on a false charge the death of Sir Simon 
Burley, his fellow Knight of the Garter, and the intimate 
and trusted friend of his heroic brother, Edward, Prince 
of Wales. 

These arrests were followed by a gathering of the 
Royalists at Nottingham. Here were appointed certain 
Lords Appellant to impeach Gloucester, Arundel, and 
Warwick, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other 
Fitz-Alan. The Lords Appellant were Rutland, Hunting- 
don, Kent, Somerset, Salisbury, Despenser, and Scrope. 

After the middle of August, the Court was at Woodstock, 
near Oxford. Thence on the 17th, the King directed William 
Rickhill to go to Calais, and hear what the Duke of Gloucester 
wished to say. 

It was now, probably, that Gloucester's doom was sealed. 
On the 26th a circular was sent to Sheriffs directing that the 
magnates, knights, and other gentlemen of each county 
should meet the King at Kingston-on-Thames on the Monday 


after the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, very early in the 
morning, ' sufficiently armed,' in order to ride with him to 
Westminster to open Parliament. 

On August 28 the Court was at Westminster. By a 
letter that day the King informed the Sheriffs that the 
Duke of Lancaster was allowed to bring up for the meeting 
of Parliament, 300 men-at-arms and 600 archers, the Duke 
of York to bring 100 men-at-arms and 200 archers, and the 
Earl of Derby to bring 200 men-at-arms f nd 400 archers. 
It looks as though these royal princes were apprehensive, 
and had made terms as to conditions on which they would 
attend Parliament. 

Parliament was opened on September 17, and the Bishop 
of Exeter began by a speech highly extolling the pure 
monarchic principle. He took for his text from the prophet 
Ezekiel the words, * Rex unus erit omnibus,' and proved con- 
clusively by many authorities that ' by any other means 
than one sole king no realm could be well governed,' 

The Opposition were dismayed and thrown out by the 
loss of their leaders, and power for the time rested with the 
King, his lords and their retainers, and his force of paid 
Cheshire archers. Parliament was assembled in a large 
wooden shed especially built for the purpose in Palace Yard, 
open at both ends and surrounded by the Cheshire men, 
who sometimes threateningly drew their arrows ready to 
fly, ' ad pugnam arcubus tensis sagittas ad aures tendentes.' 
The Commons, as they have usually done in English history, 
faithfully carried out the behests of those who held real 
power. Sir John Bushy, a courtier, was elected Speaker. 
On September 20 the Commons impeached of high treason 
Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, brother of 
Richard, Earl of Arundel. The charges did not allege treason- 
able conspiracy at the present, as to which probabl}'' no 
sufficient evidence could be obtained, but related to the 


transactions of 1387 and 1388. The Archbishop was accused 
of having instigated, aided and abetted Gloucester, Arundel, 
and Warwick in their violent and armed usurpation of royal 
prerogative in 1387, their creation of the Commission to 
which the King's powers had been transferred, and their 
execution without the King's real consent, of Sir Simon 
Burley and Sir John Barnes. The Archbishop was at once 
convicted, and, by the King's decision, sentenced to banish- 
ment for life from England. By subsequent papal decree, 
obtained at the instance of the English Government, he was 
translated from Canterbury to the remote and barbarous 
diocese of St. Andrews in Scotland, a purely derisory appoint- 
ment, since, at that time, Scotland, out of opposition to the 
English, adhered to the anti-pope. 

On the next day, September 21, the eight lords who 
formed the inner Council — Rutland, Kent, Huntingdon, 
Salisbury, Somerset, Nottingham, Despenser, and Scrope — 
brought their appeal of treason, on the same heads, against 
the great Richard, Earl of Arundel, Warenne, and Surrey. 
He was tried by a commission of peers presided over by 
the Duke of Lancaster. The proceedings had the speed 
of a court martial. Arundel was accused of those pro- 
ceedings ten years earlier for which he had received a formal 
pardon. Henry, Earl of Derby, gave evidence of one 
treasonable saying of his, and the King himself deposed 
to another. Arundel pleaded his general and particular 
pardon, but this plea was overruled on the ground that 
the King, when he signed it, was acting under armed con- 
straint. Arundel's defence was drowned by shouts of 
' Traitor,' and the Duke of Lancaster pronounced sentence 
of death. Arrangements for his execution had already 
been made on Tower Hill, and he was led straight from 
Westminster Hall through London to the scaffold. Holin- 
shed says : ' There went with him to see the execution done, 


six great lords, of whom there were three Earls — Nottingham, 
who had married his daughter, Kent, that was his sister's 
son, and Huntingdon — being mounted on great horses, with 
a great company of armed men, and the fierce bands of the 
Cheshire men furnished with axes, swords, bows and arrows, 
marching before and behind him.^ When he should depart the 
palace, he desired that his hands might be loosed to dispose 
of such money as he had in his purse, betwixt that place 
and Charing Cross. This was permitted, and so he gave such 
money as he had in his purse with his own hands, but his 
arms were still bound behind him. When they came to 
Tower Hill the noblemen that were about moved him right 
earnestly to acknowledge his treason against the King. 
But he in no wise would do so, but reiterated that he was 
never traitor in word or deed, and herewith, perceiving 
the Earls of Nottingham and Kent, that stood by with 
other noblemen busy to further the execution, being of 
kin and allied to him, he spake to them and said, " Truly 
it would have beseemed you both rather to have been absent 
than here at this business. But the time wiU come e'er 
it be long, when as many shall marvel at your misfortunes 
as do now at mine." After this, forgiving the executioner, 
he besought him not to torment him long, but to strike 
off his head at one blow, and feeling the edge of the sword, 
whether it was sharp enough, he said, "It is very keen ; 
do that thou hast to do quickly." And so kneeling down, 
the executioner struck off his head with one blow.' 

His body was buried together with his head in the Church 
of the Augustine Friars in Bread Street. Thomas of Walsing- 
ham says that Arundel ' flinched not at all, neither when 
he underwent the sad sentence of death, nor when he passed 

^ Walsingham says : ' Praecessit eum et sequebatur satis ferialis turba Cestrien- 
sium armata securibus, gladiis, arcubus et sagittis.' Holinshed closely follows 
Walsingham in this narrative. 


from the place of judgment to the place of punishment, nor 
when, with bowed head, he offered himself to the stroke, 
but, changing not the colour of his face, he no more grew 
pale than if he were invited to a banquet.' It was a death 
worthy of a son of the Normans and of the warrior who, 
ten years earlier, defeated off Kent the invading fleets 
of France and Flanders. Of all the processions that have 
passed through the London streets, this was surely one of 
the strangest. Was any other Englishman ever escorted 
to his death by his nephew and his son-in-law ? ' The 
words of dying men enforce attention like deep harmony.' 
Those of Arundel must have sounded then and afterwards 
in the minds of Huntingdon, Kent, and Nottingham, and 
his prediction was fulfilled. Kent and Huntingdon came 
to the same death, and Nottingham died in exile. 

In those fierce days and long afterwards, politics was a 
war-game played not as now with mere salaries and dignities, 
but with the lives and whole fortunes of men at stake. 
Ten years earlier, Arundel had caused death and exile to 
be inflicted upon men at least as virtuous as himself. But 
Arundel was on the popular side, and among the people 
soon arose the incredible legend that the light-hearted 
Richard was haunted by horrible dreams in which the Earl 
of Arundel appeared to him in dreadful and menacing aspect. 

On September 21, the day of Arundel's execution, a royal 
direction was given to the Earl Marshal, Lord Nottingham, 
to bring the Duke of Gloucester up for trial. On the 24th 
an answer was received from Calais that the Duke had died 
there in prison. He was then declared by Parliament 
to be a traitor, and his property was confiscated to the 
King. All men believed that, as was afterwards proved, 
Gloucester had been secretly strangled or smothered in 
prison to avoid the spectacle of an uncle doomed to death 
and publicly executed at the behest of a royal nephew. 


On October 6 a royal order was sent to the two Arch- 
bishops that they should direct all the clergy of their dioceses 
to offer up public prayers for the repose of the soul of Thomas, 
Duke of Gloucester, who — said the missive — had been appealed 
of treason, and, before he died, had confessed his guilt. 
On the 14th a direction was given to the Earl Marshal as 
Governor of Calais, to deliver the dead body of the Duke 
to the King's Clerk, Richard Maudelyn, to be brought 
home and buried in Westminster Abbey. But on October 31, 
the King, from Westminster, wrote to Eleanor, Duchess 
of Gloucester, that the body was not to be taken to the 
Abbey, but to Bermondsey Priory, there to await further 
orders. Probably demonstrations were feared. Eventually 
it was taken to Pleshy, and there interred in the Collegiate 
Church which the Duke had founded in 1393. Later, in 
the reign of Henry IV, the coffin was removed to Westminster 
and placed in a low floor sepulchre in the Chapel of Edward 
the Confessor between the shrine and the tomb of Edward III. 
A richly imaged brass which covered it disappeared so 
late as the eighteenth century.^ 

The third accused magnate, Thomas, Earl of Warwick, 
was tried on September 28. He was not put to death, 
but his estates were confiscated, and he was sentenced to 
life imprisonment in the Isle of Man. He saved his life by 
confessing to the treasonable intents of himself and his allies. 

Richard, Earl of Arundel, by his will, dated December 5, 
1375, founded the collegiate church at Arundel, which his 
son afterwards built. Among other beqr«ests in this will, 
the Earl bequeathed ' to my very dear sister of Hereford 
my cup with hearts, and to my very dear sister of Kent my 
cup with trefoils, that is to say, if they be kind (naturelles) 

^ One would like to know how this valuable brass disappeared. It was still 
there in 1707, for there is a picture of it in Sandford's Genealogical History, published 
in that year. Who robbed the Abbey and despoiled the dead after that late date ? 


and such as they ought in reason in aid and furtherance of 
my will,' otherwise they may have 'none of my aforesaid 
bequest.' It looks as though the Earl did not place much 
confidence in either very dear sister. 

Now came a great creation of titles for the ruling set. 
The King first declared that Henry, Earl of Derby, and 
Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham, had ' loyally used 
themselves towards the King in coming (in 1388) from the 
Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel and Warwick, 
traitorously assembled, in defence of the King.' Then, 
* On Saturday in Michaelmas week the King, sitting there, 
crowned in his royal majesty and holding in his hand the 
royal sceptre, created his cousin, Henry of Lancaster and 
Earl of Derby, to be Duke of Hereford, and gave to him 
the charter of his creation, which was read in open Parlia- 
ment. And thereupon the King girded the Duke with a 
sword and set over his head a cap of honour and dignity 
of a Duke and received of him his homage.'^ With the 
same ceremonial, the Earl of Rutland, the Duke of York's 
son, was made Duke of Albermarle, John Holland, Earl of 
Huntingdon, was made Duke of Exeter, and his nephew, 
Thomas Holland, third Earl of Kent, was made Duke of 
Surrey, and the Earl of Nottingham was made Duke of 
Norfolk.^ John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, was created 
Marquis of Dorset, with use of a circlet instead of a cap. 
Lord Despenser was made Earl of Gloucester, and Lord 
Scrope, Earl of Wiltshire. The estates of the vanquished 
were distributed among the victors. A substantial part of 
the Earl of Arundel's wide estates was granted to Thomas 
Holland, the new Duke of Surrey, who also got Warwick 

^ Tower records. 

^ According to a contemporary Latin annalist, the people {vulgar es) derisively 
called the new Dukes ' non duces sed dukettos,' ' not dukes but dukelets.' — 
Annates Rich. ii. p. 223. Holinshed says that these creations were made at Christ- 
mas, at Lichfield, where the King kept the feast, but he seems mistaken in this. 


Castle, with a special grant of the valuable tapestry there, 
representing the combat of Sir Guy with the Dragon. Other 
portions of the Arundel and Warwick spoils went to the new 
Dukes of Exeter and Norfolk. The Duke of Norfolk ob- 
tained from the estates of his late father-in-law Lewes 
town and castle. To John Holland, Duke of Exeter, 
were assigned the castle, manor, lordship, and town of 
Arundel, with lands in Sussex and other counties, and with 
all the goods, vessels, and utensils in the said castle.^ 
He also obtained Reigate Castle. The Hollands were thus 
placed on a far finer landed basis than they had ever had 
before. The Duke of Exeter was also given charge of 
the late Earl of Arundel's son and heir. The boy after 
a time escaped with the aid of one William Scott, and fled 
oversea to Join his uncle, the exiled and deposed Archbishop 
Fitz-Alan of Canterbury, at Utrecht or Cologne. He came 
back to England two years later with that prelate and Henry 
of Bolingbroke and enjoyed a fearful revenge against the 
destroyer of his father. 

The Earl of Kent probably chose the title of Surrey 
for his dukedom because he had received a large part of 
the Arundel estates in that county which had once belonged 
to the lover of Isabel de Holland, the famous John, Earl 
de Warenne and Surrey. John Holland, no doubt chose 
the title of Duke of Exeter because he aimed at being 
a magnate of the south-west. He already had large 
estates in Devonshire, Cornwall, and Sussex by grants 
from the Crown, and had built a great house on the river 
Dart, about twenty miles from Exeter. When created 
Duke, he was also made Governor of Exeter Castle. 
These western possessions, with a short interval of seques- 
tration, continued in the hands of the Hollands till the 
end of the War of the Roses. 

1 Pat. 21 Ric. II, p. 143. 


After the Michaelmas proceedings at Westminster, 
ParHament was adjourned, to meet again at Shrewsbury 
in the middle of February 1398, on the day after the feast of 
St. Hilary. A special summons to attend was sent to the 
King's Viceroy in Ireland, Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March, 
husband of Alianora Holland of Kent, and heir-presumptive 
to the Crown, who was so soon to die in an obscure skirmish 
in the west. Shrewsbury was a v>^ell-chosen place of meeting, 
for there Parliament would be under the influence of the 
King's wild but loyal subjects in Cheshire, Lancashire, and 
Wales. When it met, one or two measures were passed 
reversing the proceedings or declarations of the ' Merciless 
Parliament ' of 1388. Before it broke up, Parliament voted 
a subsidy on wool to the Crown, and a Commission of twelve 
peers and commoners, including the two Hollands, was 
appointed to ' examine and answer certain petitions to the 
King ' with which this particular Parliament had not had 
time to deal, and, generally, to wind up incompleted business. 
Some historians seem to have vastly exaggerated the con- 
stitutional or unconstitutional import of this procedure. 

For a space after the well- designed and efficient stroke 
of state of 1397, Richard seemed all-powerful. 

' In those days,' says Froissart, 'there was none so great 
in England that durst speak against anything the King 
did. He had a Council to his liking, who exhorted him to 
do what he list ; he kept in his wages two thousand archers, 
who watched over him day and night.' Froissart also 
says that Richard had confidence only in his brother, the 
Earl of Huntingdon — now Duke of Exeter — and the Earls 
of Rutland and Salisbury. It was the supreme hour of 
John Holland, chief organiser and promoter of the whole 
recent well-managed blow against the leaders of the high 
aristocratic ring, who were supported by the London middle 
class. Now, however, took place an event pregnant with 


the downfall of the new regime, the famous quarrel between 
the new Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk. 

On January 25, 1398, Henry of Bolingbroke, now Duke 
of Hereford, 'humbly kneeling on his knees before the King,' 
in public audience, craved and received pardon for his 
offences of 1387 and 1388. As he had already, at Westminster, 
been exonerated, and had even received a dukedom, this 
ceremonial was an unnecessary as well as a dangerous 
humiliation to inflict upon a proud man of the blood royal, 
but Richard enjoyed this kind of rite, which John Holland 
also underwent in 1386. The ceremony probably had 
to do with the Norfolk affair. In the Parliament at Shrews- 
bury Hereford accused Norfolk of having said to him as 
they rode together, in December last on the road from 
Windsor to London, that the King indeed used fair words, 
but intended to destroy or exile them and others when a 
favourable opportunity came. Hereford and Norfolk, who 
(as Derby and Nottingham) had supported the Duke of 
Gloucester against the King in 1387, and the King against 
Gloucester in 1397, had certainly every reason to distrust 
both Richard and each other. The Duke of Norfolk denied 
the allegation, and challenged Hereford to ordeal by battle. 
The King, after a later hearing at Windsor, decreed that 
this sensational encounter should take place on Gosford 
Green, in the very centre of England, near Coventry, on 
April 29, 1398. 

The Duke of Albemarle, says Holinshed, as High Con- 
stable, and Thomas Holland, Duke of Surrey, appointed 
to act as Earl Marshal, since the actual Earl Marshal was 
a combatant, ' entered into the lists with a great company 
of men apparelled in silk, embroidered with silver, every 
man having a tipped staff to keep the field in order. About 
the hour of prime the Duke of Hereford came to the barriers 
of the lists mounted on a white courser, barded with green 


and blue velvet embroidered sumptuously with swans 
and antelopes of goldsmith's work, armed at all points. 
The Constable and Marshal came to the barriers, demanding 
who he was. He answered, ' I am Henry of Lancaster, 
Duke of Hereford, who am come hither to do mine endeavour 
against Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, as a traitor 
untrue to God, the King, the realm, and me.' Then he 
swore upon the Gospels that his cause was just, made the 
sign of the cross on his horse, sheathed his naked sword, 
drew down his visor, entered the lists, descended from his 
horse, sat down in a chair of green velvet at one end of 
the lists, and awaited his adversary. * Soon after him entered 
the King in great triumph, accompanied with all the peers 
of the realm, and in his company was the Earl of St. Pol, 
who was come out of France in post to see this challenge 
performed.' After a proclamation for the maintenance 
of order during the combat, a herald cried, ' Behold here 
Henry of Lancaster, Duke of Hereford, appellant, who 
is entered into the lists royal to do his devoir against Thomas 
Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, defendant, upon pain to be 
found false and recreant.' 

' The Duke of Norfolk hovered on horseback at the entry 
of the lists, his horse being barded with crimson velvet, 
embroidered richly with lions of silver and mulberry trees, 
and when he had made his oath before the Constable and 
Marshal that his quarrel was just and true, he entered the 
field manfully, saying aloud, " God aid him that hath the 
right," and sat him down in his chair, which was of crimson 

The young Duke of Surrey measured their spears to see 
that they were of equal length, handed one himself to Hereford, 
and sent the other across the lists by a knight to Norfolk. 
Then the herald commanded the champions to mount and 
prepare for battle, and their chairs were removed. 


Now the two dukes had their spears in rest and had begun 
to advance to the encounter, when the King, who sat in a lofty 
seat, threw down his truncheon, and the heralds shouted to 
arrest the fight. The two dukes sat again in their chairs two 
mortal hours while the King consulted with his Council, 
and then Sir John Bushy read out the royal decision, which 
must have come as a huge disappointment to the multitude 
which had assembled to see so fine a fight, including, according 
to Holinshed, ten thousand men-at-arms, and no doubt all 
the fashion and beauty of the wealthy Midlands. 

Richard pronounced judgment before trial. Norfolk 
was to go into exile for life, Hereford for ten years, which 
the King afterwards reduced to six. This policy Richard 
adopted, Froissart says, upon the advice of John Holland, 
Duke of Exeter, who thought that in this way the King would 
be rid of two powerful and dangerous subjects, and that the 
life sentence upon Norfolk would please the people, because 
Norfolk was unpopular, while the sentence upon the adored 
Bolingbroke would not be severe enough to give rise to much 
displeasure. In fact, Bolingbroke's admirers said that 
it would not hurt him much ; he could well amuse himself 
abroad, where he had many friends, and he could make long 
visits to his sisters, the Queens of Castile and Portugal. 

Froissart remarks that the news of the proposed combat 
between the Earl of Derby and the Earl Marshal, ' made a 
great noise in foreign parts ; for it was to be for life or death, 
and before the King and the great barons of England.' It 
was spoken of variously. Some said, ' Let them fight it 
out ! These English knights are too arrogant, and in a short 
time will cut each other's throats. They are the most 
perverse nation under the sun, and their island is inliabited 
by the proudest people.' But others, more wise, said, 
' The King of England does not show great sense, nor is he 
well advised when, for foolish words not deserving notice, 


IN ST. Paul's cathedral, destroyed in the fire of 1GG6 

Reproduced from landlord's 'Genealogical History of the Kings of England,' 1707 


he permits two such vaHant lords of his kindred thus to 
engage in mortal combat. He ought to have said, when he 
first heard the charge, ' You, Earl of Derby, and you. Earl 
Marshal, are my near relations. I command, therefore, that 
you harbour no hatred against each other, but live like friends 
and cousins that you are. Should your stay in this country 
become tiresome, travel into foreign parts, to Hungary or 
elsewhere, to seek for deeds of arms and adventure.' 

Hereford after the sentence looked melancholy, but 
seemed to accept his fortune resignedly. The day in October 
1398 that he mounted his horse to ride down to Dover, 
there was great popular demonstration in his favour. ' Forty 
thousand men,' says Froissart, ' were in the streets bitterly 
lamenting his departure, and the leading citizens rode with 
him as far as Dartford.' ' A wonder it was to see,' says Holins- 
hed, ' what number of people ran after him in every town and 
street where he came, before he took to sea, lamenting and 
bewailing his departure, as who should say that, when he 
departed, the only shield, defence, and comfort of the Common- 
wealth was gone.' One can imagine the scenes in the old 
streets of Rochester, Canterbury, and Dover. Henry was 
well received at Paris by the French King and the royal 
dukes. He was a widower, and dallied with the thought of 
marrying the fair Marie, daughter of the Duke of Berri, 
but Richard used diplomatic means to avert this alliance, 
sending over the Earl of Salisbury for that purpose. The 
Duke of Exeter was now appointed Governor of Calais in 
succession to the banished Norfolk, and the rumour at once 
spread that this was a preliminary step to the surrender of 
Calais to the French. 

During the winter 1398-9, the Court was mainly at West- 
minster. About Christmas, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lan- 
caster, ended his unsatisfactory life and career. He was 
buried with his first wife in St. Paul's Cathedral under a 


great monument which was destroyed in the fire of 1666, 
Richard, whose extravagant Court always needed more 
means of support, who was unwilling to summon a Parlia- 
ment and ask for a subsidy, and who had already exhausted 
the patience of all classes of his subjects by various feudal 
and commercial exactions, now took possession of the revenues 
of the vast Lancaster estates on the ground that they belonged 
to the Crown so long as the exile of the successor to them 
should continue. The Duke of Exeter must have advised 
this fatal step against his brother-in-law, and he received 
some grants from the revenues. Froissart remarks that, if^ 
after the death of the old Duke of Lancaster, Richard had at 
once recalled Henry from exile, placed him in possession of 
his estates, recognised him as the greatest person in England 
after himself, and had promised to take his advice in all 
things, he would have done well, and would have averted his 
doom. But those who know from modern experience how 
strong is the passion of power will not be surprised that such 
was not the advice given to the King by John Holland, 
Duke of Exeter. 

Richard fatuously chose to leave England for a military 
expedition into Ireland at the very moment when he had 
desperately injured and offended his skilful, powerful, and 
exiled cousin, the darling of the Londoners and most popular 
of English nobles. Before he departed he enjoyed the last 
great festivity of his reign. The glorious Banquet of the 
Knights of the Order of the Garter at Windsor Castle on 
the day of St. George, April 23, 1399, marks the culmination 
of the fortune of the Lancastrian Hollands. It was Richard's 
custom to hold this festivity every year. Ladies were hono- 
rary members, and appeared in robes of uniform colour and 
pattern supplied by the royal wardrobe, and were called 
Ladies of the Order. The Countesses of Kent and Derby 
were new companions in 1388, and, in 1389, the third Duchess 


of Lancaster (Katherine Swynford) and the Countess of 
Huntingdon, her step-daughter. 

This year the banquet of St. George's Day was celebrated 
with great splendour and noble company. The knights 
present, all apparelled in robes of scarlet, were King Richard, 
the Dukes of York, Bavaria, Brittany, Guelders, Surrey, 
Exeter, and Albemarle, the Marquess of Dorset, the Earls 
of Northumberland, Salisbury, Worcester, Gloucester, and 
Wiltshire, the Count of Ostravant, Sirs William Beauchamp, 
Peter Courtenay, John de Bourchier, William Ai'undel, 
Simon Felbrigge, and Henry Percy. The ladies were Queen 
Isabel of England, a child of twelve. Queen Philippa of 
Portugal, Henry Bolingbroke's sister, the Duchess of Guelders, 
and those of York, Ireland, and Exeter ; the Marchioness of 
Dorset, and Alice, Dowager Countess of Kent, the perilous 
Constance, Lady Despenser, who was Albemarle's sister, the 
Countesses of Oxford, Salisbury, Westmoreland, and Glou- 
cester ; the Ladies Mohun, Poyninges, Beauchamp, Fitz- 
walter, Gommenys, Blanche Braddeston, Agnes Arundel, de 
Roos, de Courcy, and de Trivet. 

The violently victorious Hollands were present in force. 
The Dukes of Exeter and Surrey represented the men of the 
olan ; among the women the Duchess of York was Surrey's 
sister, the beautiful Joan Holland, and the Marchioness of 
Dorset (before and later known as the Countess of Somerset) 
was another sister, Margaret Holland. Joan and Margaret 
were now between twenty and thirty years old, in full flower 
of beauty, fair daughters of the house of Kent. Their 
mother, Alice, Countess of Kent, born Fitz-Alan, was also 
there, notwithstanding the recent execution of her brother. 
Lord Arundel. 

At the annual banquet of the Order there was occasionally 
missing a knight who had sat in the Hall at Windsor on the 
previous year, and had been subsequently put to death at the 


instance of some of his brethren. So Sir Simon Burley, the 
Earl of Arundel, the Duke of Gloucester had disappeared. 
On the present occasion, two knights, the Dukes of Lan- 
caster and Norfolk, were in exile, and the Earl of Warwick 
was captive in the Isle of Man. Some of those present may 
have had the sense of a distant gathering storm. But if, 
at the splendid feast in Windsor Hall on St. George's Day, 
1399, there had been present a seer endowed with second 
sight, as at that famous supper before the French Revolution, 
his predictions would have cast gloom and horror over the 
brilliant, triumphant assembly, and chilled the blood of 
April dancing through their veins. Five months later, the 
gentle-minded, cultivated, and charming King, little more 
than thirty years of age, who sat at the centre of the table, 
was deposed from the throne ; nine months later, he and the 
brave and powerful Exeter, the young, chivalrous Surrey, 
the poetic and accomplished Earl of Salisbury, the Earls of 
Gloucester and Wiltshire, all lay slain in their graves. The 
Duke of Brittany had ended his stormy career and changing 
fortunes before the close of the year. Four years later, 
on July 21, 1403, another famous knight present at this 
feast, Sir Henry Percy, the gallant ' Harry Hotspur,' was 
slain as he furiously ranged that bloody field ' in the plain near 
Shrewsbury,' attempting to reach and kill the usurping 
Bolingbroke. His head was fixed on a gate of York, and the 
four quarters of his body on gates of London, Bristol, 
Newcastle, and Chester. 

This doom-preceding banquet was on April 23. On the 
16th King Richard had signed his will, written in choice 
Latin. It contained thoughts on life and death, an expression 
of religiovis faith, and the most detailed and minute directions 
for the ritual of his funeral at Westminster Abbey. He 
bequeathed £10,000 to his nephew the Duke of Surrey, 
and 30,000 marks to his brother the Duke of Exeter, both 


of whom were among the executors appointed by the will. 
The King was at Bristol on April 27, back at Westminster 
Palace on the 29th, and on May 29 he was at Milford Haven, 
and a few days later he sailed for Ireland on the expedition 
intended to crush the Irish, who had lately defeated and 
slain Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, his Viceroy and heir- 
presumptive. The Dukes of Surrey and Exeter were 
with him. The latter brought 140 men-at-arms and 500 

On July 4 the new Duke of Lancaster landed with a few 
followers in Yorkshire, and in two or three weeks was at the 
head of an army of 60,000 men, and in possession of almost 
every part of the kingdom. The force which the honest but 
helpless Duke of York gathered to oppose his brother's son, 
melted away, as also did the troops which Richard hastily 
brought back from Ireland. Richard found himself exactly in 
the position of James II nearly three centuries later, suddenly 
abandoned by everyone and impotent. Even one of his recent 
Lords Appellant, the Earl of Rutland, now Duke of Albe- 
marle, a cousin whom Richard ' loved beyond measure,' 
betrayed him, as John Churchill betrayed his benefactor. 

The Earl of Wiltshire, K.G., was beheaded on July 30. 
The Hollands remained almost alone at Richard's side. 
The Duke of Exeter seemed the best negotiator, since his 
wife was sister to Henry of Lancaster. He left Richard at 
Conway, and went with his nephew, the Duke of Surrey, to 
Henry at Chester to ask his intentions. Henry detained 
them there for a few days until he had secured the person of 
King Richard at Flint Castle. According to De Wavrin's 
account, he then sent for the Duke of Exeter and said to him, 
' Brother-in-law, it would be well that you should return to 
Calais, the government of which shall not be taken from 
you unless we learn that there is something in you which we 
do not know at present. And there we charge you to remain 


until we shall have arranged with my Lord the King about 
those matters which you and I discussed the other day. And, 
on your life, take care not to let anyone of the French party 
enter, and speak to none, by letters or otherwise, until we 
let you know.' 

The Duke of Exeter, adds this chronicler, ' without 
showing sign of grief, took leave of the Duke, for well he 
understood how things were. He left the fair town of 
Chester, and rode so much that, without going to see his 
wife, he came to Dover, whence he set out to sea, and came 
to Calais ; but know ye that sorrow and sadness were so 
great in him that no one could express it, which grief and 
displeasure he had to endure, for there was nothing else to 
be had for the present ; so he was forced to dissemble.' 

Certainly John Holland, fallen so swiftly from his estate 
as the most powerful man in England, and full of fears 
for the future, must have ridden gloomily down that Dover 
road which he had traversed so gaily on his way to and 
from King Richard's wedding, and to and from the grand 
tournament at St. Inglevert. If de Wavrin is correct, it was 
a bold stroke of confidence to let him go to Calais, seeing 
how close-allied the Richardian party was with the French 
Government. But Henry moved cautiously and advisedly, 
and no doubt felt secure of the allegiance of the Calais 

The Duke of Exeter was soon back in London for one 
of the most eventful meetings of Parliament in English 
history. Parliament met in September 1399 to receive 
the forced resignation of Richard and sanction the succession 
of Henry. There was a passionate and stormy scene. Sir 
John Bagot, then a prisoner in the Tower, was brought 
to the bar, and made a declaration that it was by the advice 
and instigation of the Duke of Albemarle that the lords 
were arrested by the King, and that the Duke of Gloucester 


was murdered at Calais by the order of the Duke of Norfolk. 
Albemarle rose and denied the charge, and offered to vindicate 
his innocence by combat. Lord Fitzwalter and twenty 
other lords jumped up to accept the challenge. The Duke 
of Surrey, young Thomas Holland, rose and said that any- 
thing which Albemarle had done was by constraint, and 
offered to vindicate him in fight. There was a furious 
scene. All these challengers flung down their hoods by 
way of token, and the hoods were delivered to the Constable 
and Marshal to be kept. 

Henry IV was crowned, and the first Parliament of 
the new reign met on October 14. It resolved on the 17th 
that the late advisers of the deposed King should be put 
in prison. The Duke of Surrey was sent to the Tower, 
and afterwards to Wallingford; the Duke of Exeter was 
imprisoned in Hertford Castle ; Albemarle, Gloucester, and 
Salisbury were confined elsewhere. The accused lords 
were brought before Parliament on October 29. Albemarle 
again denied connivance in Gloucester's murder ; Surrey 
pleaded that in 1397 he had been too young to take a real 
part in these affairs ; Exeter also denied connivance. He 
said, however, that he had heard King Richard say that 
Gloucester would be put to death. All these lords naturally 
threw the guilt on to the ex-Governor of Calais, the exiled 
Norfolk, who had died at Venice. Their sentence was far 
milder than they could have expected, and the new King 
used his utmost influence to save them from the popular 
hatred. The three dukes were sentenced to lose their 
titles of Albemarle, Surrey, and Exeter, and became again 
Rutland, Kent, and Huntingdon. The new-made Marquis 
of Dorset and the Earl of Gloucester became again the 
Earl of Somerset and Lord Despenser. Lands and possessions 
acquired since 1397 by royal concession were taken away 
from them, a more serious loss than that of new-minted 


titles. They were released on sureties being given, and 
thus bound over to keep the peace. 

The Commons murmured at this clemency, for which, 
indeed, Henry nearly paid dearly. They wished the Lords 
Appellant to be put to death. ' But,' says Holinshed, 
* the King thought it best rather with courtesy to reconcile 
them than, by putting them to death, secure the hatred 
of their friends and allies, which were many and of no small 

Henry IV was, after all, brother-in-law to John Holland, 
Earl of Huntingdon, and first cousin to Rutland. He had 
also in 1397 acted more or less in co-operation with their 
party against Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick, and had 
shared in the subsequent distribution of honours of Richard II, 
so that his position with regard to these lords was delicate. 
Also he was a true statesman, cautious, abiding his time, 
undiverted from his aims by passion, and striking at the 
right moment. The Earl of Huntingdon had been defeated 
in the great game by a brain superior to his own. He was 
like Hector to Achilles. He himself had given proof of 
vigour, daring, energy, and decision in the proceedings in 
1397, but in later policy either he had shown want of judg- 
ment, or else he had been unable to control the childish 
impulses of his brother, King Richard. The restored Arundel, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, in an opening sermon to the 
Parliament which dethroned Richard, took for his text, 
' Vir dominabitur vobis,' ' a man shall rule over you ' 
(1 Reg. 9), and said, with truth, that the reign of Richard 
had been that of a child, whereas that of Henry would be 
that of a man. Young and rash counsellors would now, 
he said, be replaced by the wise and old. 



Much you had of land and rent, 
Your length in clay's now competent ; 
A long war disturbed your mind, 
Here your perfect peace is signed. 

Of what is't fools make such vain keeping ? 
Sin' their conception, their birth weeping ; 
Their life a general mist of error, 
Their death a hideous storm of terror. 

Webstek, Duchess of Malfl. 

Could the two Hollands, after Richard's deposition, have 
been content to lead quiet lives on their hereditary estates 
they would have been unmolested, and the young Earl of 
Kent, at any rate, would soon have been taken into royal 
favour, as was afterwards his younger brother, and might 
have had a successful career in civil and military employment. 
This kind of cool wisdom was not in them ; and not even 
for a few weeks could they remain inactive and submissive 
under their astute and clever relative. They had not the gift 
of patience, and could not even await the inevitable reaction 
which would have given them the ghost of a chance. Their 
attempt was even more hopeless than that of Viscount Dun- 
dee, in 1689, They had just seen the whole realm abandon 
Richard II and turn to Henry of Lancaster. They may, 
indeed, have thought with some reason that, if they waited 
longer, there would be no Richard to restore ; so that if they 
were to strike at all, they must strike at once. For dramat ic 



purposes, it is well that they acted as they did, and put their 
fortune to the touch to win or lose it all. 

The tale of their revolt is variously told by the chroniclers, 
French and English. The best account of it is probably 
that pieced together by Mr. Wylie in his laborious and erudite, 
yet amusing, ' History of England in the reign of Henry IV.' 
He is a great master of the records of the reign, and the 
present writer quotes him freely. It is vanity and waste 
of time to tell entirely anew in different words a story which 
has been well told already. 

The plot began on Wednesday, December 17, 1399. The 
Earls of Huntingdon, Kent, Rutland, and Salisbury, the 
deposed Archbishop of Canterbury, Roger Walden, and the 
ex-Bishop of Carlisle, met in the house of William, Abbot of 
Westminster. This Abbot was supposed to be a supporter 
of Henry IV, but really hated him because he had heard him 
say, years ago when he was Earl of Hereford, that, in his 
opinion, religious men had too much property, and princes 
too little. Then there was a French physician, John Paul, 
whom Richard had left at Wallingford as one of the guardians 
of his child queen, and Sir Thomas Blount, a gentleman of 
Oxfordshire to whom Henry IV, only a month earlier, had 
given a grant of £20, charged on the revenues of the City of 
Hereford. A priest called Richard Maudelyn is also said to 
have been there. He was a retainer of Richard II, and 
resembled him curiously in face and figure. 

The first idea of the conspirators was, according to the 
chroniclers, to invite the King to a tournament to be held at 
Oxford, and therecapture him, but this project was abandoned. 
The King was at Windsor, and had himself sent out many 
letters of invitation for an entertainment, a jousting and 
' mommy ing,' which was to be given there on January 6, the 
Feast of the Epiphany. The plan of the conspirators was 
this : armed men were to be introduced into the castle at 


Windsor under the disguise of guards and drivers of carts 
full of tilt harness, as if in preparation for the jousting. The 
lords in the plot were to meet at Kingston on the evening of 
January 4, and ride thence in the night with their followers 
the short distance to Windsor. At a given signal, the men, 
previously entered in disguise, were to kill the guards and 
open the Castle gates. King Henry and his sons would then 
be captured. It was said that the conspirators intended to 
kill them forthwith, but perhaps they meant to hold them 
captive until Richard was restored. After this, the con- 
spirators intended to announce that Richard was free and 
was with them, passing off Richard Maudelyn in that part 
until the real Richard could be recovered from his prison. 
The idea was altogether wild — the kind of plot a man might 
weave in his dream. They rashly imagined that Richard 
would be welcomed back by a sufficient body of supporters 
and that all the solemn legalities of the late Parliament 
could be undone. They did not, apparently, realise in the 
least how unpopular they were. 

The conspirators drew out six bonds, in which they 
bound themselves to be true to each other and to restore 
Richard or die in the attempt. These were sealed and 
sworn, and each conspirator kept a copy. It proved im- 
possible to keep a secret of this kind from December 17 
until January 4. This was not surprising in view of the 
fact that the Earl of Huntingdon's wife was King Henry's 
sister, and that the Earl of Kent's mother was Archbishop 
Arundel's sister, and that the perfidious Earl of Rutland 
was in the plot,^ and that his sister. Lady Constance, was 
wife of one of the conspirators. 

^ One story is that a Holland retainer told a lady of Ught character that some 
movement was on foot, and that she retailed the information to her next admirer, 
one of the King's attendants. If we are to chercher lafemme, Constance, daughter 
of the Duke of York, sister of Rutland, and wife of Despenser, was more likely 
the traitress. 


' There was evidently,' says Mr. Wylie, ' a general sense 
of some unknown danger impending, but nothing seems 
to have been known for certain until the appointed day, 
January 4. The King with his four sons and some few 
friends had been keeping Christmas in retirement at Windsor. 
He was out of health and needed rest. The Prince of Wales 
also and many of the royal household were ailing, and the 
usual suspicions of poisoning were abroad. Archbishop 
Arundel had been expected at Windsor, but Henry had 
sent him a message to keep out of the way at Reigate. 
A general uneasiness prevailed, and the King was heard 
to say that he wished that Richard, the focus of all intrigue, 
were dead. The Duke of York, the Earls of Northumber- 
land, Westmorland, Arundel, and Warwick, with others, 
approached him with a petition that his wish might be 
carried into effect ; but he refused with some show of in- 
dignation, though he added that if there should be any 
rising in the country, Richard should be the first to die.' 

The other Lords were at Kingston on January 4, but 
Rutland was not there. A letter sent to him in haste required 
him without fail to observe his oath and join the rest at 
Colnbrook, whence the newly arranged attack on Windsor 
was to be carried out on the 6th. Rutland had made up 
his perfidious mind to break his oath and ruin his friends 
in order to save his own life and property. He took the 
letter and the bond, with the six seals attached, to his father 
the Duke of York at Windsor, who at once informed the 
King.i It was now late and dim in the Windsor streets 
on the afternoon of January 4. ' Horses were saddled. 

^ According to most of the chroniclers, the Duke of York saw the bond sticking 
out of his son's dress at dinner, seized and read it ; was very angry, and said that 
he would at once inform the King, upon which Rutland anticipated his father by 
galloping off to Windsor and himself making a full confession. Mr. Wylie does not, 
like earlier historians, accejit this version ; but if true, it would make the conduct 
of Rutland a shade or two less black. 


The King with his sons and two attendants threw himself 
promptly into the adventure, daring all the chances of capture 
or ambuscade by the way.' He took the road to London, 
and arrived there in the dark at nine o'clock at night. 
Rumour had now spread far and wide, and on the way he 
met the Mayor of London, who told him the news, exaggerated 
by panic, that the rebels were in the field with 6000 men. 
' Once in London, he threw himself on his people.' Letters 
were at once issued to the sheriffs of all counties to arrest 
those traitors — Thomas, Earl of Kent, John, Earl of Hunting- 
don, and the rest. Like letters were sent to the Governor 
of Calais, who was instructed to keep a close watch on 
French movements, for the father of Richard's queen might 
well be, in his own interests, and, perhaps was, in the plot. 
Orders were sent to the Channel Islands to look out for 
French ships, and to all the ports that no ships should be 
allowed to cross the sea. The Sheriffs of Leicester, Shrop- 
shire, Stafford, Derby, and Nottingham — counties where 
the rebels might be strong — were directed to call out their 
local forces. High pay was offered in London for military 
service for fifteen days, and, by the evening of Monday, 
January 5, more than 16,000 archers and bill-men had 
been enrolled. On Tuesday, the 6th, the King had 20,000 
men under arms at Hounslow, and rode out to review them. 
Meanwhile, Kent and Salisbury and their friends, finding, 
or suspecting, that their plot had been discovered, rode, 
after all, from Kingston to Windsor on the night of January 4, 
without waiting for Rutland, and the 6th. They reached 
Windsor in the early morning hours of the 5th too late. 
It was above twelve hours after Henry had left. They 
were at the head of 400 or 500 armed followers. They 
were admitted into the Castle, and searched it and the town 
for the King, and, says the chronicler, ' deden moche harme 


They had missed their game, but still tried to raise the 
country. They sent messengers in all directions to say that 
Windsor Castle was in their hands, that Henry was a fugitive, 
and that Richard was free and was assembling an army. 
The young Earl of Kent rode on the 5th to Sonning on the 
Thames, where was residing Richard's queen, Isabella, a girl 
of thirteen. According to the chronicler, Kent entered the 
house wild and excited. He pulled the royal badges of King 
Henry's servants from the necks of the Queen's attendants 
and threw them on the ground, and said : ' Benedicite ! What 
makes Henry of Lancaster fly before me, he who used to 
boast so much of his courage ? Know all of you, that he 
has fled before me to the Tower of London with his sons and 
friends. I intend to go to Richard who was, and is, and will 
be, our true King. He has escaped from prison, and is now 
at Pontefract with 100,000 men.' 

After that, the young Earl of Kent rode to join his friends 
at the rendezvous at Colnbrook where they had now increased 
their forces by a certain number of allies. The question 
was whether they should march on London ; a body of them 
had already gone in that direction as far as Brentford. 

' At Colnbrook they were joined by the Earl of Rutland, 
whose dealings seem as yet to have been unsuspected. He 
told them that Henry was approaching with forces too 
large for them to cope with. A consultation ensued, and 
it was decided not to advance farther to the east, but to 
fall back to the west, where, with all Wales and Cheshire 
at their back, they could alone hope to make a stand. 

' In all speed they drew off westward, but at Maidenhead 
Henry's advanced troops were upon them. The Earl of Kent 
made a successful stand at Maidenhead Bridge, and kept the 
assailants off till all the party and the baggage were in safety. 
The Earl of Salisbury, meanwhile, led off the bulk of the 
following through Henley and Oxford to Woodstock, where 


the Earl of Kent soon joined them, having stolen off from 
Maidenhead unperceived in the night. He travelled by 
Wallingford and Abingdon, spreading still the rumour of 
his sham success. The whole force, now much disheartened, 
retired during the 7th hastily to Cirencester whither Sir 
Thomas Blount, the ex-Bishop of Carlisle, and others of 
their friends, had preceded them. Another body found their 
way round to join them by St. Albans and Berkhampstead, 
and the whole force encamped in some fields outside the 
town of Cirencester.' 

The French chronicler, De Wavrin, says that the rebel 
lords themselves, with some followers, took lodgings at the 
best hostel in Cirencester — no doubt in the grande place in 
front of the great church which, though mostly rebuilt in the 
fifteenth century, stands still where it then did. An archer of 
King Henry's body-guard, on his way from Wales, happened 
to put up at the same hostelry that night, and had a fire lit 
m a room apart. The Earl of Kent came into the room and 
asked the archer who he was. The archer recognised the 
Earl, and replied : ' My lord, I come from Wales, whither I was 
sent by the King.' At these words, the Earl took off the 
badge the archer wore and threw it into the fire, saying : 
' See what I do in contempt of Henry of Lancaster. You 
traitor ! You came here to spy, but you shall be hanged.' 

The archer got away and told the Bailiff of Cirencester 
who the strangers were. The Bailiff collected forty archers 
and came to the hostelry, and told Kent and the rest that they 
must deem themselves under arrest, and not leave the inn till 
the King was informed and gave orders. Then the fight began. 
Mr. Wylie says : ' In the night the townspeople, headed by the 
Bailiff, John Cosyn, surrounded the house in which the rebel 
leaders were sleeping, barred up the entrances with beams and 
timber, and, having closed all the approaches, began to assail 
the inmates with showers of arrows, lances, and stones, the 


women helping in the streets. A fierce attack was kept up 
from day-break through doors and windows, the disheartened 
troops outside the town having melted away, while the small 
band of leaders in the crowded building were left to defend 
themselves as best they might against the fury of the towns- 
folk. By nine o'clock on the morning of January 8 the 
mob had broken in, and the whole party surrendered under a 
promise that their lives should be spared until they should 
have an audience with the King. They were then lodged 
in the Abbey of the Austin Canons in the centre of the town, 
and news of the capture was despatched to Henry at Oxford. 

' Already vast crowds had gathered into the town from 
all the country round, but in the afternoon, about three 
o'clock, when alarm and excitement were high, a fire broke 
out in some buildings in another part of the town. Supposing 
that this was the work of the conspirators, who might make 
their escape whilst the citizens were busied with the flames,^ 
the mob rushed wildly to the Abbey, and demanded with 
threats of violence that the leading conspirators should be 
given up. Sir Thomas Berkeley, who had taken over the 
custody of the rebels and was making arrangements to 
conduct them to a place of greater safety, resisted for a 
time, but was over-borne, and on the night of January 8, 
the Earls of Kent and Salisbury were brought out and by 
torch-light ignominiously beheaded by the rustic plebeians in 
the streets.' 

The monkish chronicler of St. Albans, Walsingham — that 
great hater of the Hollands and their friends — says ' the Lord 
thus paid them the penalty due to their faithlessness and 
unbelief.' He adds that ' both had been faithless to their 
King, who had just shown such favour to them ; but the 
Earl of Salisbury, John Montacute — the friend of the Lollards, 

^ One contemporary account says that the fire was the work of one of their 
friends with that object, but the explanation in the text seems more probable. 


the derider of images — died miserably, refusing the sacrament 
of confession, if the common account be true.' ^ 

The party of Richard were all suspected of new ideas, 
and it was, on the other hand, the first Parliament of Henry 
IV, which passed, immediately after the Revolution, the first 
statute in England authorising the burning of heretics. It 
was Henry's reward to the Archbishop Arundel for his 
services. The enmity of the monastic orders to the Lollards 
was natural, because an essential part of Wycliff's open 
teaching had been that kings and lords had the right to 
deprive of its temporal possessions a Church which they 
deemed to be corrupt, and his lay follower. Lord Cobham, 
gave a practical point to the teaching by statistical calcula- 
tions, showing how many feudal knight-soldiers the King 
could maintain for foreign war if he confiscated the monastic 

Another contemporary French chronicler gives this 
different portrait of the Earl of Salisbury. Mr. Wylie thus 
translates him in Saxon style. 

' He was humble, sweet, and courteous in all his ways 
and had every man's voice for being loyal in all places and 
right prudent. Full largely he gave and timely gifts. He 
was brave and fierce as a lion. Ballads and songs and 
roundels and lays right beautiful he made. Though but 
a layman, still his deeds became so gracious that never, I 
think, of his country shall be a man in whom God put so 
much of good, and may his soul be set in Paradise among the 
saints for ever.' 

Thus by a provincial mob were slain these two gallant 
young lords, loyal to their rightful King, Richard ; disloyal 

^ Lord Salisbury was said to have taken down all tlie images of saints about his 
house except one figure of St. Catherine which, because it was particularly revered 
by his retainers, he allowed to remain standing in his brewhouse. All his ballads, 
songs, roundels, and lays are unfortimately lost. 


to the level-headed usurper. The official record judiciously 
stated that they were ' taken and beheaded by the King's 
loyal lieges without process of law.' One of the confederates. 
Lord Despenser, the ex-Earl of Gloucester, husband of 
Constance of York, escaped from Cirencester, but was cap- 
tured and beheaded by a mob at Bristol on January 15, and 
his head was sent to London. 

The bodies of the Earls of Kent and Salisbury were buried 
in the Abbey Church of Cirencester, and their heads were sent 
in a basket to King Henry — even as the head of Robert de 
Holland, Kent's great-grandfather, had been sent to Henry 
of Lancaster. 

The King was at Oxford. The treacherous Rutland was 
now with him and had personally directed the despatch of 
troops, together with stores of shields and arrows, to Ciren- 
cester, Gloucester, and Monmouth, to be used against the 
associates to whom he had three weeks before sworn fealty. 
The King, at the Carmelite Monastery outside Oxford, re- 
ceived the heads of the Earls of Kent and Salisbury, and 
about thirty more heads of rebels killed at Cirencester. He 
sent these on to London to be fixed up there — some in sacks, 
and some slung on poles between men's shoulders. These 
ghastly trophies were borne through the London streets 
on January 16. The King himself re-entered London in 
triumph on the following day and was met by the Arch- 
bishop and a solemn procession of eighteen Bishops and 
thirty-two Abbots, who, with religious pomp, conducted him 
to St. Paul's, where the Te Deum was sung. The people of 
Cirencester were rewarded by the appointment of a Royal 
Commission to inquire into the usurpations and encroach- 
ments of the Abbot of the Monastery in that town. The 
worthy Bailiff, John Cosyn, not only had a tale to tell which 
must have lasted him till he died, but received an annuity of 
100 marks for life. Four does from the Forest of Bradon 


were to be presented to the townsfolk every year to com- 
memorate their loyal services for ever. 

Two days before Henry so gloriously entered London, 
John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, came to his violent 
end. According to the English chronicler, Walsingham, 
this Earl had neither taken part in the raid on Windsor, 
nor accompanied the rest to Cirencester, but had remained 
in London watching events until after the failure of the 
attempt on Windsor.^ Then he escaped in a small boat 
down the Thames, but was driven by the weather to land. 
He first went to Hadley Castle, the house of the Earl of 
Oxford. ' Finding himself beset with spies, he stole out 
of the Castle and hid himself in a mill in the marshes, waiting 
for the weather to abate. He was accompanied by two 
of his faithful followers — his esquire, Sir Thomas Shelley ^ 
of Aylesbury, and his butler, Hugh Cade. For two days 
and nights he lurked about disguised. Then, in desperation, 
he tried the river again, but he was again driven ashore, 
and took shelter in the night at the house of a friend, John 
Prittlewell, at Barrow Hall, near Wakering in the flats near 

' But by this time, the hue and cry of the country was 
on him. Acting on the King's proclamation, the men of 
Essex surrounded the house. The Earl was captured while 
sitting at a meal, and sent to Chelmsford. Here the mob 
would have despatched him but for the intervention of 
Joan de Bohun, Countess of Hereford, who sent him under 

^ A French chronicler says that Huntingdon had gone to Cirencester and had 
escaped thence when the townspeople attacked the party. But, as Mr. Wylie 
points out, it is not likely, if this were so, that he would have returned to the Thames 
below London through the midst of his enemies ; he would rather have tried to 
escape oversea from the Severn or Wales or Devonshire. Thus the English account 
is more credible here. 

* Sir Thomas Shelley was afterwards attainted. He was a brother of Sir 
William Shelley, from whom descended all the Shelleys of Sussex. 


a strong guard to her fortress of Pleshy, and reserved him 
for the sweetness of her private revenge.' ^ 

John Holland had now, indeed, fallen into the hands 
of his deadliest foe. This Countess Joan was the widow 
of the last of the de Bohuns, Earls of Hereford. She had 
no sons, but two daughters — Mary and Eleanor. Mary 
had been the first wife of Henry IV, whence his ultimate 
choice of title as Duke of Hereford. Eleanor had been 
the wife of Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, and had brought 
to him the Castle of Pleshy and other de Bohun possessions. 
Eleanor, the Duchess, was no longer living in January 1400. 
The loss of her husband had been followed by that of her 
only son, Humphrey, who had died in captivity in Ireland. 
Eleanor, broken-hearted, had taken the veil at the Convent 
of Barking in Essex, where she may have met another nun 
— her maternal cousin, the Lady Bridget Holland of Kent. 
She died there on October 3, 1399, and was buried in St. 
Edmund's Chapel in Westminster Abbey. Thus Joan, 
Countess of Hereford, was not only mother of the late Duchess 
Eleanor, whose ducal husband the Earl of Huntingdon had 
been foremost in destroying, but her other son-in-law was 
Henry IV, against whose throne and life Huntingdon had 
just been conspiring. As though all this were not sufficient, 
Joan, Countess of Hereford, was born a Fitz-Alan. She 
was sister of Richard, tenth Earl of Arundel, whom Hunting- 
don had taken part in sentencing and had himself escorted 
to the scaffold in September 1397 ; and she was sister 
also of the Archbishop of Canterbury who had been con- 
demned for treason, deposed, appointed to an obscure 
and impossible Scottish see, and driven into exile. 

It is true that Joan's sister, Alice Fitz-Alan, had married 
Thomas Holland, second Earl of Kent, the brother of Hunt- 
ingdon. That she held captive her sister's brother-in-law 
^ From Wylie's Henry IV. Pleshy ia about seven miles from Chelmsford. 


may only have added a more poignant flavour to Joan's 
revenge. Certainly John Holland had no chance of escape 
at all when he found himself once more at Pleshy Castle, 
and in the power of Joan, Countess of Hereford. The 
following account of his last hours is given by the French- 
Burgundian chronicler, Jean de Wavrin, Lord of Forestal, 
who wrote in his old age, between 1455 and 1471, a chronicle 
of English History. One never knows how far these 
chroniclers draw on their poetic imagination for details ; but 
De Wavrin was, in his youth, fighting on the English-Bur- 
gundian side in the wars in France and so had plenty of 
opportunity to learn from Englishmen about events within 
living memory. His early history of England is very 
mythical, but about events which happened in or near 
his own time internal evidence shows that he took great 
pains to get the best information he could. Men of the 
world like Froissart and De Wavrin are far better authorities 
than monastic chroniclers, to whom stories came distorted 
by ecclesiastical prejudice in the seclusion of monasteries. 
In any case, the story is well and dramatically told, and 
this is how De Wavrin tells it.^ 

' The Earl of Huntingdon being thus taken, the Countess 
wrote to the King, who was then in London, all that had 
happened, and that he would be pleased immediately to send 
the Earl of Arundel, his cousin, to see vengeance taken for his 
father, for her intention was to have the said Earl of Hunting- 
don hanged and drawn. King Henry rejoicing at the news, 
when he had read the letter, called to the young Earl of 
Arundel and said to him : " Fair cousin, do you go and see your 
aunt yonder, and bring me all the prisoners she has, alive 
or dead." ' (A royal order dated January 10, 1-100, to the 
Governor of the Tower of London to receive the Earl of 
Huntingdon as prisoner, is extant.) 'At which embassy 

^ From Edward Hardy's translation. London, 1891. 


the Earl of Arundel much rejoiced, mounted his horse, and 
made such haste that he came to the town where his aunt 
the Countess was, who had collected around there more than 
8000 peasants, all armed and supplied with weapons, and 
she caused the noble Earl of Huntingdon to be brought 
before them to be put to death ; but there was certainly no 
one in all that company but what had pity on him, for he was 
a very fair prince, tall and straight, and well formed in all 
his limbs, who was there before them with his hands bound. 
At this very hour the Earl of Arundel arrived at the place 
and saluted his aunt, and seeing there present the Earl of 
Huntingdon, Duke of Exeter, he spoke thus to him : " My 
lord, what say you ? Do you not repent that, by the advice 
of yourself and others, my father was put to death, and that 
you have so long held my land, and, besides, have wickedly 
governed my sister and myself till, by very poverty, I have 
been obliged to depart from the kingdom of England ; and if 
it had not been for my cousin of Clarence, I should have died 
of want. And thou, villain, dost thou not remember how 
I have often taken off and cleansed thy shoes when thou 
hadst to taste before King Richard, and thou treatedst me 
as if I had been thy drudge. But now the hour has come 
when I will have vengeance on thee." And then he caused 
the Earl to be brought in front of the line of townsmen that 
they might kill him. The Earl of Huntingdon, seeing himself 
in this position and looking piteously at those who were 
going to kill him, he said to them : " My lords, have pity on 
me, for I have never done ill in anything to any of this 
country." And there was none of them who would have 
wished to do him any harm, or who felt not great pity for 
him, excepting the Earl of Arundel and the Countess of 
Hereford, who said to her men : " Cursed be ye all, false 
villains, who are not brave enough to put a man to death." 
There then drew near an esquire of the lady who offered 


himself to behead the said Earl of Huntingdon, and the 
Countess ordered him to do it forthwith, so the esquire, axe 
in hand, came forward, and, throwing himself on his knees 
before the Earl of Huntingdon, said : " My lord, pardon me 
your death, for my lady has commanded me to deliver you 
from this world." Then the Earl, who had his hands bound, 
fell on his knees and spoke thus to him who had asked pardon 
for his death. " Friend, art thou he who is to put me out of 
this world ? " " Yes, my lord," said the esquire, " by the 
command of my lady." And the Earl said to him, " Friend, 
why dost thou wish to take away the life God has given me ? 
I have done no harm to thee or thy lineage, and thou canst 
see very well that there are here seven or eight thousand people, 
of whom there is none who wisheth to harm my body except- 
ing thee. Ah, my friend ! Why canst thou find it in thy 
heart and thy conscience to slay me ? " Then the Earl began 
to weep a little, saying : " Alas ! If I had gone to Rome, where 
our Holy Father the Pope sent for me to be his Marshal, 
I should not have been in this danger, but it is too late. 
I pray God to pardon my sins." When the esquire had 
heard the piteous words of the Earl of Huntingdon, such 
dread took possession of him that he began to tremble, and 
turned to the Countess, weeping, said to her : ' My lady, for 
God's mercy, pardon me ; for I will not put the Earl of Hun- 
tingdon to death for all the gold in the world." Then the 
lady in great anger said to him : " Thou shalt do what thou 
hast promised, or I will have thy own head cut off." Where- 
upon the esquire hearing the lady, was much dismayed, and 
returned to the Earl of Huntingdon, saying : " My lord, I 
pray of your mercy, pardon me your death." Then the Earl, 
throwing himself on his knees, spoke thus : " Alas ! is there no 
help for me but I must die ? I pray to God and the Virgin 
Mary and all the Saints in Paradise to have mercy on me." 
At which words the esquire swung up his axe and struck the 


Earl such a blow with it that he fell to the earth badly- 
wounded on the breast and face, but directly the esquire 
had withdrawn the axe the Earl sprang to his feet, saying : 
" Man, why dost thou this ? For God's sake, deliver me 
quickly." And then the esquire gave him eight blows with 
the axe before he could strike home on the neck. Then said 
the Earl again : " Alas ! why dost thou this ? " And then the 
esquire drew a little loiife with which he cut the throat of the 
Earl of Huntingdon.' It was about sunset on that January 
afternoon, says Walsingham, when the deed was done. John 
Holland was about forty-eight or forty-nine years old when 
his violent life came to this violent end. 

Next came the triumph. The Earl of Arundel ' entered 
London, his trumpets sounding and his minstrels before him, 
and between the said Earl of Arundel and the minstrels 
came the said prisoners and those who carried on a pole 
the head of the Duke of Exeter, Earl of Huntingdon. The 
Londoners showed great joy at this adventure, and cried 
all along the roads and streets, "God save our noble King 
Henry and the Prince, his son, and all the noble council." On 
this very day there arrived in London the Earl of Rutland 
who, in like manner, was having borne before him the head 
of Lord Despenser, likewise set on a pole, his trumpeters 
and minstrels before him, and a cart in which were twelve 
prisoners bound hand and foot, who were all sent to the 
Tower of London, and right behind came the said Earl of 
Rutland with a great force of men-at-arms, and so he guarded 
the prisoners to the Tower.' 

There was nothing to be said in defence of that double- 
dyed traitor Rutland, who entered London by the Oxford 
Road, following the head of his sister's husband, but certainly 
there was retributive justice in the procession which on the 
same day came out of Essex by Mile End and Whitechapel, 
whose hero was the youthful Earl of Arundel, and whose 


glorious trophy the head of John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon 
Less than three years earlier, Holland, in the day of his power, 
' riding a great horse,' had conducted the Earl of Arundel's 
father through London to the scaffold. Now Huntingdon's 
head was borne along the streets with joyful music sounding 
before,and the young Earl of Arundel riding behind. His body 
was buried in the collegiate church which had been founded 
at Pleshy by the Duke of Gloucester, and where that murdered 
Duke was himself buried. His head was fixed, with those 
of other leaders of the rising, over the Kentish end of London 
Bridge, to remain exposed ' as long as it should last and 
endure.' But, in little more than a month, on February 19, 
it was taken down, restored to the Earl's widow, and buried 
with the body at Pleshy. 

The antiquary, John Weever, in his book on ' Funerall 
Monuments,' published in 1631, says that ' within the 
last few years the upper part of the collegiate church at 
Pleshy was taken down. This part of the church was 
beautified with divers rich funeral monuments, which were 
hammered to pieces, bestowed and divided according to 
the discretion of the inhabitants. Upon one of the parts 
of a dismembered monument, carelessly cast here and there 
in the body of the church, I found these words : 

' Here lyeth John Holland, Erie [sic] of Exeter, Erie 
of Huntingdon and Chamberlayne of England, 
who dyed . . .' 

Such fates attend rich monuments and the bones of 
famous men. The great Castle of Pleshy itself, where the 
Duke of Gloucester came out that summer morning into 
the court to meet Richard II and Huntingdon, and where, 
on a cold mid-winter evening, Huntingdon was slain in 
the presence of his fierce enemies, the Countess of Hereford 


and young Arundel, yet stood for some time, and was a 
favourite residence of Margaret of Anjou, queen of Henry VI. 
It had quite or almost vanished long years before John 
Weever came there. ^ But the Castle of the de Bohuns had 
been built within some far more ancient and far less perish- 
able British earthworks, which still denote the spot. Pleshy 
is an unfrequented village, set amid homely Essex scenery, 
and lying two miles west from the high road from 
Chelmsford to Dunmow, and about seven miles from the 
nearest railway station, but the place is worth a visit. One 
can see very well where was the Castle keep, and where 
the entrance gate into the great court, and where was the 
middle of the court. 

John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, was a fine fighting 
man, bold and energetic, who, like his father and grand- 
father, rose by old and recognised methods — those of war 
and capture of woman ; and he died right well, keeping a 
crowd at bay, so noble was his mien, with none daring or 
willing enough to slay him, notwithstanding his attempt to 
overthrow the hero of the fickle populace. He had been an 
ardent sinner, but was not degenerate ; and for sins there is 
remedy, even in the hour of death, but for degeneration none. 
A good tree sometimes bears bad fruit, but a bad tree never 
bears good fruit. The Gospel, the Church, and Nature, teach 
that the distinction between, for example, the malefactor on 
the right cross and the malefactor on the left cross does 
not coincide with the distinction between what we call good 

^ Henry VIII gave the college buildings and the endowments to a gentleman of 
his chamber, named John Gates, who pulled down one part of the church for 
the material. There were in this church also some monuments of the Stafford 
family. There is nothing of the smallest historic interest in the church as nov/ 
restored. All that remains of the masonry of the Castle is a one-arched brick 
bridge leading over the inner moat to the ancient mound on which the 
keep once stood, and some brick and flint foundations of the keep and 
of the gateway which once stood in a gap of the outer earthworks, and opened 
into the great court of the Castle, where a few cows now graze. 


deeds and what we call evil. In the hour of death all 
deeds vanish — good and bad alike ; nothing remains but 
the doer and that which he then essentially is. Yesterday 
with its deeds, good and bad, is now as non-existent as a 
day a thousand years ago. Many an example shows that 
the words of the Calvinist hymn, ' As a man lives so shall 
he die,' are not of strict necessity and always true. The 
Catholic Church in absolving the sinner who dies truly 
repentant does but follow in noble symbolism the unerring 
guidance given by man's unsophisticated instinct. 

John Holland was admired and liked by John Froissart, 
who knew him well at different times of life, and terms him 
a ' vaillant homme d'armes ' ; and by the other ' gentilhomme ' 
chronicler, John de Wavrin, who told with so much sympathy 
the story of his last hours. Certainly it was a long way 
from Sir John Holland, gloriously riding in summer at the 
head of an English army under the sun of Spain, to the 
Earl of Huntingdon hiding in winter among dismal muddy 
Essex marshes, his last aspiring dream dissolved, and hopes 

Evidently, no one much regretted the death of the man 
who a few months before had held supreme power in England ; 
but men, and women perhaps still more, were a little sorry 
for the fate of Thomas Holland, the young Earl of Kent. 
It was thought and said he had been misled by his unscrupu- 
lous uncle of Huntingdon working on his chivalrous feelings. 
He was about twenty-four years old, and had shown gallant 
qualities at Maidenhead Bridge and Cirencester. Froissart 
tenderly says of him : ' II estoit jeune et beau fils.' During 
his brief career, the young Earl founded the Carthusian 
monastery called Mountgrace, of which the spacious remains 
still exist near Northallerton in Yorkshire, at the foot of a 
steep rise leading to moors purple with heather in August. 
The terms of foundation show that the young Earl of Kent 


had piety towards his forbears and affection for kinsfolk 
and friends. The deed ordained that the priors and monks 
of the house should always in their orisons recommend to 
God the good estate of King Richard II, Queen Isabel, 
himself (the founder), and his wife Joan and their heirs ; also 
the good estates of John Holland, Duke of Exeter, and John 
of Ingleby, and Ellen his wife, during their lives in this 
world, and also their souls after their departure hence ; and 
the soul of Queen Anne, first wife to Richard II ; likewise the 
souls of Edmund of Woodstock, sometime Earl of Kent, 
great-grandfather of the founder, Margaret his wife, Joan, 
Princess of Wales, Thomas de Holland, Earl of Kent, his 
grandfather, Thomas his father, and Alice his mother ; and 
lastly the souls of Thomas de Ingleby and Catherine his 
wife, and Margaret de Aldenburgh, &c. 

The headless body of Thomas, third Earl of Kent, was 
entombed at Cirencester Abbey until July 1412, when at the 
prayer of Lucia di Visconti, the widowed Countess of Edmund, 
fourth Earl, Henry IV permitted it to be removed to the 
new and still unfinished Abbey of Mountgrace.^ 

There stood his monument for more than a hundred 
years while Carthusian monks chanted solemn orisons, and 
then perished in the vast and wanton destruction which 
overwhelmed the monastic churches of England, and deprived 
us of countless memorials and sculptured effigies of our 
knightly ancestors and their beauteous and stately ladies. 
With what solemn indignation did that mighty Warwick- 
shire antiquary, Sir William Dugdale, at the beginning of his 
book on the Baronage, denounce this history-destroying 
devastation ! An old writer estimated that out of 45,000 
churches, monastic and parish, which existed in England 
before the Reformation, only 10,000 were left, beside all 
the vast number of chapels and chantries destroyed. 

^ The Abbey was not completed until about 14-40. 


This number seems hardly credible, but those destroyed 
certainly included by far the greater number of cathedral- 
like churches containing the most interesting monuments.^ 
At the Revolution there was a similar destruction of 
monastic churches and monuments in France. Most of 
thiC memorial brasses were stolen from the churches which 
survived in England. All this is more the pity because 
the art of portrait painting was in that age very 
immature, whereas carving of monumental effigies was in 
high perfection. What could be more lifelike than the 
image of the Black Prince at Canterbury or that of Richard II 
at Westminster ? But of all the leading personages who 
figured in the interesting and dramatic reign of Richard, how 
many are known to us in this way ? There are effigies of 
Richard II and Queen Anne at Westminster ; of Henry 
Bolingbroke and Margaret Holland and her two husbands 
at Canterbury ; of the poet John Gower in the Abbey 
Church of St. Mary in Southwark. Are there many others ? 
The figure of John Gower is very lifelike, with the dignified 
gown worn by elder men after discarding the fantastical 
costume of the youth of that period, the forked and 
carefully cut beard, the hair falling below the ears and 
rolled up at the end. He supplies a good idea of how men 
of his time must have appeared. 

The attempt of the Hollands and their friends to restore 

' Within the walls of York, besides the cathedral — to take one instance — there 
were in the reign of Henry V, 41 parish churches, 17 chapels, 16 hospitals (in the 
old sense), and 8 monastic houses, and also the great monastic house just outside 
the Bar Gate. In the Tudor period, 18 of the parish churches and all the 
monasteries, hospitals, and chapels, were laid in the dust. Even the strong 
old Protestant writer Strype says of the man whom he calls ' the good Duke of 
Somerset ' (the Protector) : ' It must be reckoned among his failures, the havoc 
he made of sacred edifices. It was too barbarous, indeed, the defacing ancient 
monuments, and rooting out thereby the memory of men of note and quality 
in former times of which posterity is wont to be very tender (Ecclest. Hem. i. 
12). Strype's feelings as historian and antiquarian almost get the best here of 
his admiration for the Protestant ' good duke.' But ' failures ' indeed ! 


Richard caused the secret murder of the unhappy king in 
Pontefract Castle, a week or ten days after the rising. 
Archbishop Fitz-Alan of Arundel, rejoicing over the Ciren- 
cester affair, vindictively wrote on January 10, 1400, that 
the Earls of Kent and Salisbury had been beheaded by 
' Sancta Rusticitas que omnia palam facit.' (' Saint Rusticity 
who does all things openly.') This rude openness of the 
Archbishop's new and singular saint was at any rate better 
than the secret murder of Richard, covered by the cold 
official falsehood, supported by the exhibition of his dead 
face to the London public, that the late king had died a 
natural death. 

In those days of weak governments, full of apprehension 
because without standing army or police, a king deposed was 
a king murdered. It was an incident of change of govern- 
ment. ' Come, let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories 
of the deaths of kings.' Even before he landed in England, 
Henry of Lancaster well knew that he would have to slay his 
cousin. Froissart relates a conversation at Paris between 
him and Archbishop Arundel, who urged upon him the venture. 
Henry did not immediately reply, but, leaning on a window 
that looked into the garden, mused awhile, and then, turning 
to the Archbishop, said that, if he complied, he would have 
to put Richard to death. ' For this,' he added, ' I shall be 
blamed by all men, and I would not willingly do so if any 
other means could be adopted.' The Archbishop replied, 
in full accord with later ' constitutional principles,' that 
Henry would act on the advice of counsellors, and so would 
avoid any personal responsibility. 

Froissart, after relating the story of Richard's death, says : 
' I was in the city of Bordeaux and sitting at the table, when 
King Richard was born, which was on a Wednesday, about 
ten of the clock. The same time there came there, where I 
was. Sir Richard Pountchardon, Marshal then of Aquitaine, 


and he said to me, " Froissart, write and put in memory that 
as now my Lady Princess is brought abed with a fair son on 
this Twelfth Day, that is, the day of the Three Kings, and he 
is son to a king's son, and shall be a king." This gentle 
knight said truth, for he was King of England twenty-two 
years ; but when this knight said these words, he knew full 
little what should be his end.' 

John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, left three sons — 
Richard, John, and Edward — and a daughter, Constance. 
This daughter was married first to the Earl Marshal, beheaded 
at York for treason in 1405, son and heir to that Earl of 
Nottingham, for a time Duke of Norfolk, who had the quarrel 
with Bolingbroke, and secondly to Lord Gray de Ruthyn, who 
was ancestor of a new, long, and dull line of Earls of Kent. 
One of these later Earls of Kent, so descended from Constance 
Holland, sat on the commission which condemned Mary 
Queen of Scots, and he was present at her execution in 
the castle hall of Fotheringay. Mary held the Crucifix and 
said : ' As Thy arms, O God, were stretched out upon the 
Cross, so receive me into the arms of Thy mercy and forgive 
me my sins.' ' Madam,' said the Earl of Kent, ' you would 
better leave such popish trumperies and bear Him in your 
heart.' Mary replied : ' I cannot hold in my hand the 
representation of His sufferings, but I must at the same time 
bear Him in my heart.' An Earl of Kent of the nobler 
and earlier line would not so have insulted a dying queen 
and woman. 

The Earl of Huntingdon's widow, Elizabeth, was, after 
all, sister of King Henry IV, and for this reason, although 
the estates were confiscated for his treason, manors were 
re-granted sufficient for the maintenance of his children, the 
King's nephews and niece, who were brought up at their 
late father's Hall of Dartington, near Totnes in Devonshire. 
Elizabeth mourned so little for the husband who had tried 


to overthrow her brother, that within two months after his 
death she married, without the consent of the King and to 
his displeasure, a certain gentleman called Sir John Cornwalh 
more noted for his great bodily strength than for any other 
qualities. He was afterwards made Lord Fanhope. 

Waleran, Count of St. Pol and Luxemburg — he who had 
married Maud la Belle, sister of John Holland, Earl of Hunting- 
don — was pleased to add an epilogue of comedy to the tragedy 
of King Richard and the Hollands. It was the supreme 
glory of this Picard lord to have married the half-sister 
of the King of England, and he was exceeding wrath at the 
overthrow of his royal brother-in-law. His own great time 
had come to an end, and he could no longer enjoy visits to 
Eltham Palace and play the proud role of diplomatic agent 
between the kings of France and England. After meditating 
on these things for a year, the Count, in 1402, sent King 
Henry this insolent letter : 

' Most high and puissant Prince Henry, Duke of Lancaster, 
I, Waleran of Luxembourg, Count of St. Pol, considering the 
love, affinity, and alliance which I had for the most noble 
and puissant Prince Richard, King of England, whose sister 
I have married, in the destruction of which noble King you 
are notoriously inculpated and very greatly dishonoured, 
and, moreover, the great shame I and my offspring descending 
from me may, or might, have in time to come, and also the 
indignation of God Almighty, and of all reasonable and 
honourable persons, if I do not hazard myself with all my 
power to avenge the destruction of him to whom I was thus 
allied ; wherefore by these present letters, I make known to 
you that in all ways that I can and that shall be possible to 
me, I will requite you henceforth, you and yours, and all the 
damage as well by myself as by my relations, all my men and 
subjects, that I can do, I will do to you, by sea and by land, 
always without the Kingdom of France, for the becoming 


reason of the thing above discoursed of, not in anywise for 
the matters which have taken place and are to take place 
between my most dread and sovereign Lord the King of 
France and the Kingdom of England. And this I certify 
you by the impression of my seal. Given in my castle of St. 
Pol on the eleventh day of February, year one thousand four 
hundred and two.' 

The noble Count did not get a satisfactory answer to 
this letter, the composition of which must have given much 
trouble to him and his legal advisers. 

' When King Henry,' says John de Wavrin, ' had received 
and caused to be read this letter, and had understood the 
contents of it, he thought a little, and then said to the 
messenger : " My friend, return to your country, and say 
to your master the Count of St. Pol, that of his anger and 
threats, I take not much account, and say to him that my 
intention is so to meet his threats that he will have much 
to do to protect his person, his subjects, and his country." 

' Then the messenger, hearing the answer of the King, 
without replying, departed, and came to Dover, where he 
embarked in a boat and came to Calais and thence to Aire, 
where he found Count Waleran his master. When the 
Count had heard the messenger touching the answer of 
King Henry, he was much troubled in his heart, but passed 
it off as well as he could, and to keep his word he prepared 
himself to make war on the said King Henry and on all 
whom he might think wished him well. Also he caused 
to be made in his Castle of Bohaing, the effigy of the Earl 
of Rutland, son of the Duke of York, blazoned with his 
arms and a portable gibbet, which he caused to be taken 
secretly into one of his fortresses in the country of Boulogne, 
and soon afterwards the said Count ordered his people — 
namely, Robert de Reubetagnes, Aliane de Bectune, and 
other skilled men of war, who by his command placed the 


said gibbet and effigy by night close to the Gates of Calais, 
where the same gibbet was by them set up and the effigy 
of the said Earl of Rutland there hanging by the feet down- 
wards. After this was done, the two gentlemen returned to 
the place whence they had come. When it came to pass 
in the morning that the people of Calais opened the gates 
they were much amazed to see this gibbet, and at once 
demolished it, and brought it into the town, and from this 
time were the English at Calais even more inclined to do 
damage to the Count of St. Pol, and his country and his 
subjects than they were before.' 

The Burgundian chronicler thus solemnly relates this 
valorous feat of arms. 



Twist ye, twine ye ! even so, 
Mingle shades of joy and woe, 
Hope, and fear, and peace, and strife. 
In the thread of human life. 

Walter Scott. 

Thoinias Holland, third Earl of Kent, slain by the Ciren- 
cester folk, left a young widow, the Countess Joan, but 
no children. Henry IV gave means of support to Joan, 
who lived till 1444. The earldom passed to the younger 
brother, Edmund Holland, who was about sixteen in 1400, 
when he became fourth Earl of Kent. Most of the Kent 
and Huntingdon estates had been confiscated either before 
or after the revolt, and both branches of the family depended 
mainly on the King for support. Henry IV was placable 
by temperament, and wished to win the great houses to 
the support of his dubious, though parliamentary, title. 
As soon as the young Earl of Kent came of age, he was 
made high steward and received a command at sea. He 
was made Knight of the Garter in 1403. Two years later 
he first saw war in a naval expedition commanded by Thomas 
of Lancaster, one of the King's sons, and himself, two youths 
scarcely of age. He fought gallantly in an unsuccessful 
attack on Sluys, and was twice hit so badly that the French 
believed him killed. 

Edmund was a youth distinguished and charming ; 



' inclytus et amabilis,' the chronicler calls him. Like his 
late uncle, John, Earl of Huntingdon, he won renown in 
the lists. In 1405, when he was about twenty-one, he was 
challenged to a match by a Scottish champion, Alexander 
Stewart, Earl of Mar, bastard son of the famous Earl of 
Buchan, the ' Wolf of Badenoch,' himself a son of King 
Robert II. The Earl of Mar came down from Scotland 
with a special safe conduct, and the fray was fought in 
Smithfield before London's beauty and fashion. The Earl of 
Kent defeated the Northerner, no doubt with vast applause, 
winning the double event — the combat on horse and the 
combat on foot. 

Edmund, when still hardly more than a boy, was under the 
spell of the Lady Constance, sister to the second Duke of 
York, the whilom Earl of Rutland, who had betrayed Kent's 
dead brother. Constance was widow of the Lord Despenser 
who had taken part in the Holland revolt of 1400, and had 
been beheaded by the mob at Bristol. It was this fair and 
immoral lady who was concerned in the Yorkist plot of 1405, 
and smuggled the two Mortimer boys out of Windsor Castle, 
and afterwards, correctly no doubt, accused her own brother, 
the Duke of York, of treason, and tried to get one of her 
admirers to prove her allegation by ordeal of battle against 
him. A daughter named Eleanor was the fruit of the love 
affair between Edmund of Kent and Constance of York. 
This high-born passion-child married Lord Audley, of a family 
which continues to this day, and in 1431 she unsuccessfully 
tried in Court of Law to prove herself legitimate. 

But now the young Earl of Kent had to discard this 
entanglement with the widow of a rebel lord whose estates 
had been confiscated, and make a rich marriage for the sake 
of his impoverished house. Holinshed says that, ' Edmund 
Holland, Earl of Kent, was in such favour with the King, 
that he not only advanced him to high office and great 


honours, but also, to his great cost and charges, obtained for 
him the Lady Lucia, daughter and one of the heirs of Lord 
Bernabo of Milan.' 

Bernabo was brother of Gian Galeazzo de Visconti, whose 
daughter Violante, had, as his second wife, married Lionel, 
Duke of Clarence, son of Edward III and uncle of Henry IV. 
That marriage was celebrated at Milan in 1368 and was 
the most glorious affair. Violante was beautiful, and Lionel 
far renowned as the handsomest of his good-looking race. 
Violante had for her dowry 100,000 florins. There was a 
gorgeous banquet of thirty courses, the very leavings of 
which, said the enraptured Italian chronicler, would have 
fed 10,000 men, Francesco Petrarcha, the poet laureate 
of Italy, was there, and ' for the honour of his learning, was 
seated among the highest nobility,' who were far more highly 
honoured by his presence. There were two hundred English 
among the guests. During one course were presented, as gifts 
to the guests, ' seventy goodly horses, caparisoned with silk 
and silver, and during others, silver vessels, falcons, hounds, 
armour for horses, costly coats of mail, breastplates glistening 
of massy steel, corslets and helmets adorned with rich crests, 
apparel embroidered with costly jewels, soldiers' belts, and 
lastly, certain gems of curious art set in gold, and purple 
and cloth of gold for mens' apparel in great abundance.' 

Unhappily, the Duke of Clarence was so exhausted by 
Italian banqueting and love-making that he died in Piedmont 
two months after his wedding, or he was poisoned by an 
enemy, some said. But such was the wealth and extrava- 
gance of these Lombard Viscontis, into whose family the 
young Earl of Kent was now to marry. They could spare one 
of their numerous daughters for an Earl of Kent to please 
the King of England, but they were keen to make much 
greater alliances. One of their daughters had married into 
the royal family of France, and a marriage had at one time 


been talked of between Richard II and another daughter 
of Bernabo, and Michael de la Pole had been sent to Milan 
in 1379 to treat of it. These two Viscontis had amassed 
their great fortunes by taxing the people of the rich Lombard 
plain. Bernabo was a tyrant, and called the ' Scourge of 
Lombardy ' ; but all the same was a good patron of art and 
letters. He had twenty-nine children. When Henry IV, 
as Earl of Derby, was on his return from Jerusalem in 1393, 
he came to Milan, and Lucia Visconti, then fifteen years old, 
was so much smitten by this magnificent English stranger — 
he was then twenty-six — that six years later when they wanted 
her to marry a German Prince, Frederick of Thuringia, 
she cried, and would not let her maid put on her most showy 
frock, vowing that she would wait till her life's end to marry 
Henry of Derby, even if she had to die three days after she 
was wed.-^ Other proposals were made for her hand, but for 
one reason or another she did not marry till she was twenty- 
nine. The Earl of Kent was then about twenty-three, or 
six years younger than his Italian wife. Edmund Holland 
was contracted to the Lady Lucia at Milan in the summer 
of 1306, and was married to her in London on January 
24, 1307, in the Church of St. Mary Overy, now called 
Southwark Cathedral, where the poet Gower, to whom 
Richard II was so kind, had been buried two years earlier. 

The forsaken Lady Constance Despenser was sufficiently 
forgiving to attend this wedding. It was a grand social 
affair. The King himself gave away the bride — his former 
girl adorer — at the door of the church, and after the ceremony 
the guests all repaired to a grand banquet at the neighbour- 
ing palace of the Bishop of Winchester. According to 
Holinshed, Don Alfonso of Cainuola paid in the church to 
the Earl of Kent 100,000 ducats on behalf of Bernabo of 

^ Fine Mailandisch-Tlmringische Heirath's geschichte aus den Zeit Konig 
Wenzels. Dresden, 1895. 


Milan as a dowry. Perhaps, however, Don Alfonso only 
gave promissory and unhonoured notes, for in the following 
year the Earl of Kent was without means, and deep in 
debt. Edmund survived not his marriage long. In 1408 
he was appointed ' Admiral for the North and West ' in 
place of the Earl of Somerset, his brother-in-law, and soon 
afterwards was sent with a fleet to coerce Olivier de Blois, 
Count of Penthievre, who owned the island of Breton off 
the coast of Brittany, was in rebellion against his suzerain, 
the Duke of Brittany, had been a kind of Channel pirate, 
and had refused to pay a sum due to the English Crown. 
The Earl of Kent, notwithstanding his supposed rich marriage, 
was in debt, and to raise £200 on this occasion from the 
moneylenders at Southampton, he had to pawn his spoons, 
forks, spice-plates, goblets and potellers, his silver gilt 
basins with the arms of Kent and Milan, his salt cellars 
inlaid with the lodged hart, his cups dotted with pearls, and 
' balusters or pounced with ivy and the lids enamelled 
with falcons and mounted with fretlets of roses, apples 
eagles, green flowers and doves.' 

The fleet sailed early in June 1408, and the island and 
castle were captured. But the young Earl of Kent was 
wounded to death. Riding recklessly near the walls without 
wearing his ' basinet ' or iron cap, he was struck on the 
head by a shot from the castle, and died of the wound a 
few days later, September 5, 1408. His body was brought 
home and buried near that of his father at Brunne, or Bourne, 
Abbey in the fens of Lincolnshire. Edmund was the 
fourth of his family, since the Hollands had emerged from 
Lancashire, to meet a violent death. He died with no 
assets, without a will, and deep in debt. His widow Lucia 
received in 1412 an annuity of £333 65. 8d. from manors in 
Lancashire, which confirms the supposition that most of 
her doAvry had never been received or had been spent at 


once in clearing off her husband's previous debts. She 
married again. The Ehzabethan chronicler, Grafton, is 
responsible for the following statement. He does not put 
the matter as prettily as he should have done. 

' This Lucye, after the death of her husbande, by whom 
she had none issue, was moved by the King to marry hys 
bastard brother the Erie of Dorset, a man very aged and 
evil-visaged, whose person neyther satisfied her phantasie 
nor whose face pleased her appetite. Wherfore she, pre- 
ferring her owne minde more than the Kinge's desyre, 
delighting in him which should more satisfie her wanton 
desire than gayne her any profite, for verye love tooke to 
husbande Henry Mortimer, a goodly young esquire, and 
bewtifuU bachelor. For which cause the King was not 
onely with her displeased, but also for marying without 
his license, he fined her at a great some of money, which 
fine King Henry V both released and pardoned and also 
made him knight and promoted him to great offices both 
in England and in Normandy.' 

Lucia died on April 4, 1424, and was buried in the church 
of the Austen Friars in Bread Street, London. She seems 
to have been a pious soul, who lived an unhappy life, full 
of disappointments. By her will she bequeathed her body 
to be buried wheresoever it should please God. She left 
a thousand crowns to the Abbey of Brunne in Lincolnshire, 
where her husband lay buried, and a like sum to the Priory 
and Convent of the Holy Trinity, Aldwych Without, London, 
upon condition ' that they should provide a fitting priest 
to celebrate divine service daily to the end of the world, 
in every of these hereafter named religious houses, viz. 
St. Mary in Overy in Southwark, the Carthusian Minoresses, 
and Holy Trinity Without, Aldgate, and Abbey of Brunne, 
as also in the four houses of the Friars Mendicants in London, 
for the health of the souls of King Henry IV and King 


Henry V. Likewise for the souls of Edmund, late Earl of 
Kent, her husband, as also for her own soul, and the souls 
of all the faithful deceased. And that in every one of those 
houses they should yearly celebrate the anniversary of him 
the said Edmund and her the said Lucia. Likewise that every 
brother and sister in each of those houses should every day 
say the psalm of De Profundis with the wonted orison for 
the dead, for the souls of him the said Edmund, and her 
the said Lucia, by name. Moreover that in each of those 
houses they should once every month in their Quire, say 
Placebo and Dirige by note for the souls of them, the said 
Edmund and Lucia by name, and once every year a Trental 
of St. Gregory for their said souls by name.' 

Poor Lucia fondly imagined that these orisons would 
continue ' until the end of the world ' ! They lasted barely 
a hundred years. She also left a thousand crowns to the 
Provost and Canons of Our Lady de la Scala at Milan, not 
forgetful of the land of her girlhood, and another thousand 
crowns to the church where her father was buried. 

Edmund and Lucia had been married only a year and a 
half, and they had no children. The Kent title therefore died 
out in the Holland line, though it was afterwards revived in 
favour of the Greys of Ruthyn, who long held it.^ 

Edmund's sisters and the young Earl of March, the son 
of one sister who had died, became co-heirs to his valueless 

Thomas Holland, second Earl of Kent, besides his sons 
Thomas and Edmund, the third and fourth Earls, and two 
other sons who died young, had six daughters. One would 
have liked to see this family in their glorious youth in some 

^ The Greys of Ruthyn were connected with the Hollands by the marriage 
of Constance, daughter of John Holland, first Duke of Exeter. They remained 
Earls of Kent till the last of their male line, who became Duke of Kent in 1710 
and died in 1740, and all the Kent titles died with him. The barony of Grey 
of Ruthyn continued through a female descent and still exists. 


country estate. There is evidence to show that they were 
vigorous and beautiful. Some of the sisters became of 
importance in the descent of the royal line of England. 
Their names were : 

1. Alianora. 

2. Johanna, or Joan. 

3. Margaret. 

4. Eleanor. 

5. Elizabeth. 

6. Bridget. 

Bridget became a nun, but the other five sisters married 
men of importance. The eldest, Alianora, married Roger 
Mortimer, Earl of March, who was son of Edmund Mortimer, 
Earl of March, and of Philippa, daughter of Lionel, Duke 
of Clarence, the third son of Edward III. Roger, Earl of 
March, was killed in the wars in Ireland in 1398. He was at 
the time formally recognised as heir presumptive to the 
Crown in default of children to Richard II, by virtue of 
his mother, Philippa, whose father was senior in order of birth 
to the Duke of Lancaster. If Richard II had died in, say, 
1390, England would therefore have had a King Roger of the 
House of Mortimer, and a Queen Eleanor of the House of 
Holland. Henry IV would probably never have been 
King, and the Wars of the Roses might have been avoided. 
This Roger, Earl of March, left four children, namely : 

Anne, who was nine years old on her father's death. 

Edmund, who was six. 

Roger, who was then four. 

Eleanor, who was younger. 
By strict right or custom, as received in England, that 
right by which Edward III had claimed the crown of France, 
the boy Edmund should have become King on the deposition 
of Richard II. The right was put aside by Parliament in 
favour of Henry of Bolingbroke, and this passing over the 


Mortimer claim was ostensibly the cause of the Wars of the 
Roses, the real cause being the Yorkist ambition. The two 
Mortimer boys, as possible centres of conspiracy, were taken 
away from their mother by Henry IV and kept at Windsor 
Castle. The attempt made in 1405 by that ambiguous lady, 
Constance Despenser, and her brother, the treacherous Duke 
of York (formerly Rutland and Albemarle) to smuggle them 
away to Wales was foiled. The boys were recaptured in a 
wood near Cheltenham and placed in safer keeping. Edmund 
was kept many years a prisoner in an Irish castle, and died 
there. The two unfortunate youths were both dead before 
1425, and left no children. The claim then passed to their 
elder sister Anne. She and her sister had been left with their 
mother, Alianora, born Holland, who, after her husband the 
Earl of March's death, married Lord Powys and died in 1405. 

Anne Mortimer was married to Richard, Earl of Cambridge, 
younger brother of the existing Duke of York and son of 
Edmund Langley, not by Joan Holland, but by his first wife, 
the Spanish Princess. This Earl of Cambridge was beheaded 
at Southampton in 1415 for his share in the Yorkist conspiracy 
against Henry V. His elder brother, the Duke of York, died 
the same year at Agincourt without leaving sons. Richard 
Plantagenet, the son of the Earl of Cambridge and Anne 
Mortimer, and so grandson of Alianora Holland, became 
Duke of York and was killed at the Battle of Wakefield in 
1460. He was father to Edward IV and Richard III and 
grandfather to Elizabeth of York, who married Henry VII 
and so reunited the Roses. Thus, Alianora Holland was an 
ancestress of Henry VIII and his successors, Edward VI, 
Mary, and Elizabeth, and through the daughter of Henry VII, 
who married James of Scotland, was also an ancestress in the 
Stewart line. 

Another daughter of Thomas Holland, second Earl of 
Kent, was Johanna, or Joan, a Beauty who married four times. 


Her first husband, whom she married in 1393, was much older 
than herself, Edward Ill's son, the easy-going and ineffec- 
tive Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, whose first wife 
had been Isabella of Castile. He was then about fifty and 
Joan not twenty. Froissart remarks that the Duke of 
Gloucester, who was jealous of his brother the Duke of 
Lancaster, ' cared nothing for his brother the Duke of York, 
a prince that loved his ease, and was without malice or guile, 
wishing only to live in quiet ; also he had a fair lady to wife, 
daughter of the Earl of Kent, who was all his pleasure, and 
with whom he spent most of his time that was not filled by 
hunting and other diversions.' Froissart, who had not been 
in England for twenty-seven years, arrived at Dover on 
July 16, 1394, a year after Joan's marriage, and met the 
Court two days later at Canterbury. All his old friends were 
dead, and he knew no one at first, but he rode in the train of 
the King by Ospringe and Leeds Castle, and thence, crossing 
again the chalk downs, to Eltham, conversing on the way 
about the events of the times with Sir William de Lisle and 
Sir Richard de Sturry. At Leeds Castle the Duke of York, 
to whom he had letters of introduction, presented him to 
the King, and a few days later at Eltham Froissart had 
an opportunity to present Richard his book on L'Amour 
handsomely written and illumined and ornately bound, 
studded and clasped.^ No doubt he also addressed at Eltham 
his compliments to the young and beautiful Duchess of 
York and told her how well he remembered her grandfather, 
' ce bon chevalier,' Sir Thomas Holland, and her grand- 
mother, the Princess Joan of Kent. He stayed over three 
months at Court, moving about, at Eltham and Shene and 
Chertsey and Windsor, and must have seen a good deal of the 

^ A 'fair book, fair illumined and Mritton, and covered with crimson velvet, 
with ten buttons of silver and gilt, and roses and gold in the midst, with two great 
clasps, gilt, richly wrought.' 


Holland family. The impression given by Froissart of the 
first Duke of York, the most amiable of his race, tallies well 
with that conveyed by the rhyming chronicler, Hardyng : 

That Edmund, hight ' of Langley,' of good chere 
Glad and merry, and of his own aye lyved 
Without wronge, as chronicles have breved ; 
When all the lords to council and to parleyment 
Went, he wolde to hunt, and also to hawkeying. 
All gentyll disporte, as to a lord appent. 
He used aye, and to the pore supportyng, 
Wherever he was, in any place bidyng, 
Without surprise or any extorcyon 
Of the porayle, or any oppressyon. 

It is a picture of the eternal English country gentleman, 
and it is a pleasing trait that when other lords went to quarrel 
in Parliament, Edmund of Langley would go hunting. He 
is Shakespeare's ' good old York.' In ' Richard II ' the 
widowed Duchess of the murdered Gloucester sends a tragic- 
ally poignant and discouraging invitation to him through his 
brother, John of Gaunt : 

Commend me to thy brother, Edmund York. 

Lo ! this is all : nay, yet depart not so ; 

Though this be all, do not so quickly go ; 

I shall remember more. Bid him — ah, what ? — 

With all good speed at Plashy visit me. 

Alack ! and what shall good old York there see 

But empty lodgings and unfurnish'd walls. 

Unpeopled offices, untrodden stones ? 

And what hear there for welcome but my groans ? 

Therefore commend me ; let him not come there, 

To seek out sorrow that dwells every where. 

The Duke of York had to leave his hawks and hounds 
and to die in 1402, having had no children by the beautiful 
Joan Holland, who next married Sir William de Willoughby, 
Lord D'Eresby. He also died, and then she married Henry 


Scrope, Earl of Masham, whose head was cut off at Southamp- 
ton in 1415 together with that of the Earl of Cambridge, who 
was both her own stepson and the husband of her niece 
Anne Mortimer, for his share in the Yorkist conspiracy, 
Joan, after these adventures, aimed lower and, fourthly, 
married Henry Bromflete, a Yorkshire gentleman whose 
father had been chief butler to Richard II, and had then, 
with official adaptability to change of government, become 
Controller of the Household to Henry IV. After this varied 
career, the Lady Joan died in 1434. 

The second Earl of Kent's third daughter was the Lady 
Margaret Holland. She is a lady of much importance in the 
genealogy of the Kings of England. She married first, 
John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, who was the eldest 
illegitimate-born son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, 
and of Katherine Swynford. The Duke's sons by this 
Katherine, namely (1) the said John Beaufort, Earl of 
Somerset, (2) Henry, who became the famous Cardinal 
Bishop of Winchester, and (3) Thomas, the Beaufort who 
fought at Agincourt and was created, for life, Duke of Exeter, 
were made legitimate by special Act under King Richard II. 
There was also a daughter, Joan, who married Ralph Nevill, 
first Earl of Westmorland. 

In Parliament, on January 22, 1397, the King ' as sole 
Emperor of the realm of England ' (says the Tower Record), 
' for the honour of his blood royal, willed that Sir John 
Beaufort, with his brothers and sister, should be legitimate, 
and created him to be Earl of Somerset. 

* Whereupon, the said John was brought before the King 
in Parliament between two Earls, viz. of Huntingdon and 
Marshall (Nottingham) arrayed in a robe as in a vesture of 
honour, with a sword carried before him, the pummel thereof 
being gilded. And the charter of his creation was openly 
read before the Lords and Commons, after which the King 


girded him with the sword aforesaid, took his homage and 
caused him to be set in his place in the Parhament between 
the Earls Marshall and Warr.' 

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, took a leading and active 
part with his brother-in-law, Thomas Holland, third Earl of 
Kent, and with John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, and their 
allies, in the overthrow of the Duke of Gloucester and his 
party in the summer of 1397. He was raised by Richard II 
at Michaelmas to the title of Marquess of Dorset, and was 
deprived of that title after the accession of his half-brother, 
Henry of Lancaster, becoming again Earl of Somerset. 
John Beaufort took no hand in the Holland revolt, and 
remained in royal favour in the new reign. He died on 
Palm Sunday, in the year 1410. 

Margaret Holland of Kent bore to him the following children : 

1. Henry Beaufort, who succeeded his father in 1410 as 
second Earl of Somerset, and died 1418, s.p. 

2. John, who became Duke of Somerset, and died in 
1444, without sons. 

3. Edmund, who succeeded him as second Duke. He 
was leader of the Lancastrian party, and was slain at 
St. Albans in 1455.^ 

4. Joan, who married James I of Scotland. 

5. Margaret, who married Courtenay, Earl of Devon. 
These Beauforts died out in the legitimate male line, 

but John, the first Duke, left a daughter, Margaret Beau- 
fort, who was thus granddaughter of Margaret Holland. 
This was the Lady Margaret famed for her goodness, religion, 
and understanding, who married Edmund Tudor, Earl of 
Richmond, and so became mother of Henry VII and ances- 
tress of the royal house of Tudor. Child of the bright 
and tender re-dawn of Art and Letters, so soon, like the 

^ Edmund Beaufort's t^o sons were Henrj- Beaufort, third Duke, beheaded after 
Hexham fight in 1463, and Edmund, fourth Duke, murdered after Tewkesbury, 1471 * 


glorious morning of Shakespeare's sonnet, to be overcast 
by northern gloom, she endowed two chairs of divinity, and 
founded at Cambridge the fair colleges of Christ and St. 
John. On her death, a beautiful funeral sermon — whence it 
appears that she was a very perfect lady — was preached by her 
chaplain, John Fisher, who in his saintly old age was martyred 
for being unable to admit that her grandson Harry was 
supreme head of the Church in England. Lady Margaret 
had lived through the Wars of the Roses and had seen 
the woes of kings, and the crimes which they must, or do, 
commit in the name of State Policy. Fisher says of her : 
' She never yet was in that prosperity, but the greater 
it was the more always she dreaded the adversity. For 
when the king, her son, was crowned in all that great triumph 
and glory, she wept marvellously : and likewise at the great 
triumph of the marriage of Prince Arthur, and at the last 
coronation wherein she had felt great joy, she let not to say that 
some adversity would follow ; so that either she was in sorrow 
by reason of the present adversities, or else when she was in 
prosperity she was in dread of the adversity for to come.' ^ 
Well might the Lady Margaret feel dark forebodings when 
she witnessed the marriage of Prince Arthur, laden with such 
disaster, and yet more at the coronation of her lusty young 
grandson Henry, who resembled not her, nor her son his 
excellent father Henry VII, but the bad York-Woodville 
breed. She would have wept the more had she known for 
certain that he would slay her confessor, destroy venerable 
foundations which she loved, and break England away from 
the visible unity of the Catholic Church. 

When she died, five days after this coronation, it was 
a symbol of the passing away of a more chivalrous and, 
as some would say, a nobler age. Her admirable efiigy, 

^ Henry VII's eldest son Arthur was born in 1486, was married to Katherine 
of Aragon as a boy, and died in 1502. The second, Henry, was born in 1491 
and crowned June 24, 1509. Their grandmother, Lady Margaret, Countess 
of Richmond, was born 1443 and died on Juno 29, 1509. 


with a delicately carved hart at her feet, lies in front of a 
vanished altar in the chapel built by her son at Westminster, 
and behind hers is the monument of her charming, ill- 
fated, descendant, Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots. 

After the death, in 1410, of her first husband, John Beau- 
fort, Earl of Somerset, the legitimated half-brother of 
Henry IV, Margaret Holland married Thomas, Duke of 
Clarence, whole brother of Henry V, and so half-nephew 
of her first husband. This royal duke had won fame in 
previous campaigns in France, but was killed in 1421 in 
the disaster which befell the English near Beauge. In this 
same fight a son of Margaret by her first husband, John 
Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, and also her first cousin John 
Holland, second Earl of Huntingdon, were taken prisoners, 
so that the news must have given a shock to high English 
society, and especially to Margaret, Duchess of Clarence. 
The Duke of Clarence had desired to be buried like his 
father. King Henry IV, in Canterbury Cathedral. Margaret's 
first husband, the Earl of Somerset, was already there 
interred. The body of the slain Clarence was brought home 
from France. ' A new hearse was provided and a hundred 
torches were burned that night in various sacred places in the 
Cathedral.' The funeral cost £85, a great sum in those 
days. Margaret died, more than sixty years old, on Decem- 
ber 31, 1440. She had made for her husbands and herself 
a fine monumental tomb, which still stands, not much 
injured, in St. Michael's Chapel at the south-east end of the 
nave. Her figure lies between those of her two husbands, 
who are both fully armed, whence the chapel is usually known 
as the ' Warriors' Chapel.' The face of Margaret, though she 
is shown as an elderly woman, indicates that in her youth 
she too was beautiful. On her head is a ducal coronet ; on 
her robes are depicted the arms of England within a bordure 
argent. Her personal device was represented in a window 
of the Cathedral — namely, a white hart couchant, gorged 


with a golden coronet and chain under a tree. It was the 
device of her grandmother, the Fair Maid of Kent. 

Margaret Holland, Duchess of Clarence, five years before 
her death, heard of the tragedy which befell her daughter 
Joan, Queen of Scotland. The story of James I of Scotland 
and Joan Beaufort is well known but is worth repeating 
in a history of the Hollands. James, son and heir of 
Robert III, the first Stewart King of Scotland, was, for 
some political reason, sent at twelve years old in a ship to 
France. The ship was captured off Flamborough Head 
by an English rover, hailing from Cley, in Norfolk. The 
boy was taken to London. Henry IV said that he could 
learn French in England as well as in France, and kept him 
in strict custody. This happened early in 1406, and the 
same year James's father, King Robert, died and the boy 
became King of Scotland. Henry IV refused all demands 
by the Scots for the restitution of their boy King, and kept 
James close guarded, but gave him a far better education 
than he could have obtained in wild and barbarous Scotland. 
He learned all gentle accomplishments, law, and manners,^ 
and music, and to write poetry. While he was a prisoner 
at Windsor Castle in the Central Keep, or Round Tower, he 
sometimes saw from his window the lovely Joan Beaufort, 
daughter of the Earl of Somerset and Margaret Holland, 
walking or sitting with her maidens in the garden below, 
and became enamoured. The poet King thus describes his 
feelings in touching verse : 

And therewith kest I down mine eye again 

Where as I saw, walking under the Tower 

Full secretly new comen her to pleyne 

The fairest or the freshest yonge flower 

That ever I saw, methought, before that hour, 

For which sudden abate, anon astert 

The blude of all my body to my herte. 


Reproduced from Sandford's 'Genealogical History of the Kings of England,' 1707 


And though I stude abasit throw a lite, 
No wonder was ; for why, my wittis all 
Were so ourcome with plesance and delight, 
Only throw latting of my eyen fall, 
That suddenly my herte became her thrall. 
For ever, of free will : for of menace 
There was no token in her swete face. 

And in my head I drew right hastily 
And eft sones I leant it forth again 
And saw her walk that very womanly 
With no wight mo, but only women twain 
Then gan I study in myself and sayn, 
Ah Sweet, are ye a worldly creature. 
Or heavnly thing in likeness of nature ? 

Or are ye god Cupid's own princess 

And comen are to loose me out of band ? 

Or are ye very Nature the goddess 

That have depainted with your heavnly hand 

This garden full of flouris as they stand ? 

What sail I think ! Alas, what reverence 

Sail I minister to your excellence. 

Gif ye a goddess be, and that ye like 

To do me pain I may it nocht astert : 

Gif ye be worldly wight that doth me sike. 

Why list God mak you so, my dearest herte 

To do a silly prisoner this smart 

That lufis you all, and wote of nocht but woe ? 

And therefore mercy sweet ! sen it be so. 

' Of menace there was no token in her swete face.' These 
are the words of one who had seen menace in faces less 
beauteous. It was a love affair at the ' fair Castle of Windsor ' 
such as Joan Beaufort's great-aunt, Lady Maud Holland, 
had there with a less strictly guarded captive, the young 
Count of St. Pol, nearly fifty years earlier. 


James was kept in captivity for eighteen years, until, in 
1424, it suited the poUey of Cardinal Beaufort, who was then 
virtually ruler of England, that the Scottish King should 
marry his niece and return to Scotland. James was then 
about thirty-one years old. The marriage of James and 
Joan was celebrated, like that of Edmund Holland and Lucia 
Visconti, in the church of St. Mary Overy, and again the 
banquet was in the palace of the Cardinal Bishop of Win- 
chester. Joan's uncles and mother and other kinsfolk gave her 
great gifts, ' Plate, jewels, gold and silver, rich furniture, 
cloths of arras such as at that time had not been seen in 
Scotland, and, amongst other gorgeous ornaments, a set 
of hangings in which the labours of Hercules were most 
curiously wrought. And being thus furnished,' adds the 
chronicler, ' of all things fit for her estate, her two uncles, 
the Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Exeter, accompanied 
her and King James into his own kingdom of Scotland, where 
they were received of his subjects with all joy and gladness. ' 
The joy and gladness lasted not] long. James returned 
to his kingdom a cultivated gentleman with English ideas 
as to government and the protection of the people against 
powerful oppressors. It was almost as though a prince had 
gone with civilised notions and intentions to modern Albania. 
James I tried to introduce reform into Scotland, and had 
some degree of success. Drummond of Hawthornden said 
of him : ' Of the former Kings of Scotland it might be said 
the nation made the King, but this King made that people 
a nation.' 

He was a man of action as well as a poet and a musician. 
He passed salutary laws and executed powerful robber chiefs, 
both in the Highlands and the Lowlands, but his reward 
was murder. At Christmas 1435, notwithstanding omens 
and sinister and mysterious warnings, he went to Perth 
to spend the feast at the monastery of the Black Friars. An 


aristocratic conspiracy had been formed to take his hfe. 
Its chief, Sir Robert Graham, a dark and determined char- 
acter, aided by confederates in the court^ made his way, with 
armed followers, on the night of February 20 into the royal 
chamber, where James was conversing with the Queen and 
her ladies before retiring to rest. He heard the fierce 
approach of the murderers, tore up some planks and hid 
himself in a recess below the floor, while a gallant girl, 
Katharine Douglas, tried to bar with her arm the door from 
which the bolts had been treacherously removed. The King 
was discovered, dragged out, and pierced with many swords, 
while the Queen clung to him, till, wounded herself, she was 
torn violently away. James was but forty-four years old. 
It was a far cry from the dreadful night scene in the gloomy 
Black Friars at Perth to the splendid marriage banquet in 
the palace of Cardinal Beaufort, or the tender love idyll in 
the fair royal gardens of Windsor. 

James left a six-year-old child, who was crowned James II 
of Scotland, and for some years the boy king and his mother 
were in the hands of one or another of the ferocious feudal 
factions. It was then almost impossible for high-born 
women to live unprotected and alone in Scotland, and in 
1439 Queen Joan married Sir James Stewart, known as 
' The Black Rider,' and bore him three sons. She died on 
July 15, 1445, at Dunbar, and was buried by the side of 
King James I in the Carthusian Convent at Perth, which 
was destroyed at the Reformation. 

Thus through her daughter, Joan, Queen of Scotland, 
Margaret Holland was an ancestress of the Stewart line as 
through her son, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, she was 
ancestress of the Tudor line. Since, by the marriage of James 
of Scotland to Margaret, daughter of Henry VII, these two 
lines were fused, Margaret Holland was by two streams 
issuing from her body an ancestress of our royal line. This 


line also having received a rivulet coming from Margaret's 
sister Alianora, through the York descent, and the marriage 
of Henry VII to Elizabeth of York, there was a good deal 
of not very remote Holland blood in, for instance, Mary 
Queen of Scots and her grandson, Charles I of England and 
Scotland. Possibly these unfortunate sovereigns derived 
from the Hollands their genius for adopting the unpopular 
and losing side. 

Eleanor, fourth of the six daughters of the Earl of Kent, 
and the most fortunate, perhaps, of her family, married 
Thomas Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, son of that brave 
and cultivated third Earl of Salisbury who died in the first 
days of 1400 with her brother the third Earl of Kent, at 
Cirencester. The fourth Earl of Salisbury, says the historian 
Banks, ' was concerned in so many military exploits, that 
to give an account of them all would be to write the history 
of the reign of Henry V. Suffice it then to say that, as he 
lived, so he died, in the service of his country, being mortally 
wounded when commanding the English army at the siege 
of Orleans in 1428.' Salisbury was examining the defences 
of the town when he was wounded in the face by a stone 
shot from the walls, and died in a week. John de Wavrin, 
after narrating his death, says of this Earl, ' He was a good 
prince and was feared and loved by all his people, and he 
was also accounted in his time throughout France and 
England the most expert, clever and successful in arms 
of all the commanders who had been talked about during 
the last two hundred years ; besides this, there were in 
him all the virtues belonging to a good knight ; he was 
mild, humble and courteous, a great almsgiver and liberal 
with what belonged to him ; he was pitiful and merciful 
to the humble, but fierce as a lion or a tiger to the proud ; 
he well loved men who were valiant and of good courage, 
nor did he ever keep back the services of others, but gave 


to each his due according to his worth.' In short, the 
husband of Eleanor Holland was the very type of a noble 
gentleman and great captain. He died eight days after he 
was wounded, and was buried at Mehun on the Loire, 
and his death marked the close of English success in 

Lord Salisbury left no son, and thus the earldom came 
to an end of its tenure by the old Norman line of the Monta- 
cutes, or Montagus ; but Eleanor Holland gave him a daughter, 
the Lady Alice Montacute, who was married to Sir Richard 
Nevill, K.G., second son of Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmor- 
land. This Richard Nevill obtained the revival of the 
Earldom of Salisbury. He was a Yorkist, and being taken 
prisoner at the defeat at Wakefield, his head was cut off 
and placed on a pole over a gate at York. His eldest son 
was also slain in that Lancastrian victory. His second son 
and successor, also named Richard, had married Anne 
Beauchamp, heiress of the Beauchamps, Earls of Warwick, 
and obtained for himself the title of Earl of Warwick, by 
which name, and not that of Salisbury or Westmorland, 
he is known in history as ' Warwick the Kingmaker.' 
Thus this Nevill hero of the Wars of the Roses, a great 
fighter, whom Shakespeare represents as a better judge of 
a pretty girl, a horse, or hawk, than of political questions, 
was a grandson of Eleanor Holland, and great grandson 
of the second Earl of Kent. He was a second cousin once 
removed to the Henry Holland, second Duke of Exeter, 
against whom he fought in the civil war until Warwick 
changed the colour of his rose from white to red, and then 
they fought side by side in the disastrous battle of Barnet 

The fifth daughter of the second Earl of Kent, named 
Elizabeth, married another Nevill, a half-brother of the 
Richard Nevill who married Alice de ^lontacute. This was 


John Nevill, eldest son by his first marriage of the great 
northern lord of Raby and first Earl of Westmorland, Ralph 
Nevill. This Ralph Nevill married first Margaret, daugh- 
ter of Hugh, Earl of Stafford, and secondly Joan Beaufort, 
daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. By his first 
wife he had two sons and six daughters, and by his second 
nine sons and four daughters, twenty-one children in all. 
From this numerous brood descended the tribe of Nevills. 
The present lords of Abergavenny descend from Edward, 
his sixth son by Joan Beaufort. 

One of Ralph Nevill's daughters by Joan Beaufort was 
Cecily, who married Richard, Duke of York, and became 
mother to Edward IV, Richard III, and to Anne, who 
married Henry Holland, third Duke of Exeter. 

The John Nevill who married Elizabeth Holland, died, 
before his father, in 1422. Their son Ralph Nevill, second 
Earl of Westmorland, married a daughter of Henry Lord 
Percy, the famous ' Hotspur,' and his son John Lord Nevill, 
who also died before his father, married Anne, daughter of 
John Holland, second Duke of Exeter. Thus the two lines 
of the Hollands blended with two lines of the great clan of 

Lady Bridget, sixth and last daughter of the second 
Earl of Kent, became a nun in the ancient, wealthy, and 
famous Benedictine Convent of Barking in Essex, always 
the most fashionable house in England for great ladies. 
Some small remains of it, a church, a gateway, and a piece 
of wall, can still be seen by those who travel on electric tram- 
car in the obscure far east of London. 

This then, is the close of the story — the little that can be 
recovered from darkness out of dim old chronicles — of those 
Hollands who became Earls of Kent, and for a fleeting moment 
held the Dukedom of Surrey. The ten children who once 
lived together, high-born, beautiful and vigorous, in the 


manors of the second Earl of Kent, experienced great fortune 
and misfortune. Thomas had been killed by the rustic crowd 
at Cirencester, Edmund by the French in war, two other 
sons had died young ; Alianora's husband, the Earl of March, 
had been slain in Ireland; Joan's third husband, Lord 
Scrope had been beheaded for high treason; Eleanor's 
husband, the Earl of Salisbury, was wounded to death before 
the walls of Orleans ; Margaret's second husband, the 
Duke of Clarence, had been slain in battle in France ; and 
she lived to know of the murder of her royal son-in-law in 
Scotland, though not long enough to hear that her second 
son Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was slain at 
St. Albans. In those days the saying was true, ' Rara in 
nobilitate senectus.' 

The Hollands of the younger branch derived from the 
marriage of Sir Thomas Holland with the Fair Maid of Kent, 
those who became Earls of Huntingdon and Dukes of Exeter, 
continued for a while longer in the male line, and the follow- 
ing two chapters relate their story, after which this leisurely 
chronicle must return to other and less distinguished descend- 
ants from the Hollands of UphoUand in the County of 



Fair stood the wind for France, 
When we our sails advance, 
Nor now to prove our chance 
Longer will tarry ; 
But, putting to the main, 
At Caux the mouth of Seine, 
With all his martial train. 
Landed King Harry. 


John Holland, first Earl of Huntingdon and Duke of 
Exeter, had been deprived of both titles : of the dukedom 
immediately after the deposition of Richard, and of the 
earldom on his revolt and death. By Elizabeth of Lancaster 
he left a daughter, Constance, and three sons — Richard, 
John, and Edward. Richard and Edward both died un- 
married. Richard lived just long enough to come of age and 
into possession of the great estates — some twenty manors 
in Devonshire, Cornwall, and Somerset — which had apparently 
been restored by the Crown ; but he died young, and the 
estates passed to John when he came of age. John was 
born in 1394, and was six years old when his father tragically 
died at Pleshy. Something is known of his christening, 
thanks to an inquisition made in the sixth year of Henry V.^ 
Thomas Codling testified that the ' Abbot of Tavistock, in 

^ These inquisitions were made when a minor, entitled to a manor held directly 
from the Crown, came of age ; he had to prove his age, as the Crown was entitled 
to profits during a minority. As to those particular inquisitions, see Cal, Inquis, 
post mortem, vol. iv. p. 24. 



the County of Devon, being one of the godfathers, immediately- 
after the baptism gave him a cup of gold, with a circle about 
it, framed after the fashion of a lily, and ten pounds of gold 
therein ; and to the nurse, twenty shillings. Also that the 
Prior of Plympton, who was the other godfather, gave him 
twenty pounds in gold, and forty shillings to the nurse. 
And Joan, the wife of Sir John Pomeraie, carried him 
to the chancel to be christened — the same Sir John 
Pomeraie, her husband, and Sir John Dynham, knight, 
conducting her by the arms. Likewise, that twenty-four 
men did proceed before them with twenty-four torches ; 
which torches, as soon as he was baptized by that name, were 
kindled.' Evidently it was a provincial baptism intended to 
be worthy of the baby nephew of the reigning king. He was, 
indeed, in every way a high-born babe. On the side of his 
mother, Elizabeth of Lancaster, the small John Holland 
was great-grandson of King Edward III, and also descended 
in two separate lines, through John of Gaunt and his wife, 
Blanche, from King Henry III. By another line, through 
his paternal grandmother, the Fair Maid of Kent, he 
descended from King Edward I. 

The reason why the baptism was in Devonshire was 
that John Holland was born at Dartington Hall, close to 
Totnes. This was a manor which had fallen in to the Crown 
through the failure of heirs of the Lords Audley, its previous 
holders, and had been granted by King Richard, with many 
other manors in the western shires, to John Holland, Earl 
of Huntingdon, the ill-fated father of the present John. 
That Earl intended to make Dartington his chief seat, and 
built, or rebuilt, the house. Some of his work still remains, 
in a ruined condition, adjacent to the more modern buildings. 
Dartington Hall stands high above the beautiful banks 
of the Dart river. It consisted formerly of two large quad- 
rangular courts, divided by a great hall, kitchen, and other 


buildings. John Holland's great hall, with the kitchen 
and entrance porch, is still standing, but the roof was taken 
off in the nineteenth century. It measures seventy feet 
in length by forty-five in width, with side walls rising thirty 
feet to the spring of the roof, and the pitch of the roof was 
fifty feet from the ground. The windows are large and 
pointed, and the outside is embattled and buttressed. On 
the walls are still visible spandrel angels, carved in the four- 
teenth century, bearing effaced coats of arms, and in the roof 
of the portal of the hall is carved a rose and a hart couchant 
— ^the device of the Fair Maid of Kent. In the eighteenth 
century there was still painted glass in the windows, and in 
one the picture of the Duchess of Exeter, praying for the 
soul of her son. After the extinction of the Hollands, in 
the reign of Edward IV, Dartington Hall, after inter- 
vening ownerships, passed, in the reign of Elizabeth, into 
the hands of the Champernownes, who built a long low house 
at right angles to the Hall ; and they still cling to the place 
— which has now, however, a decayed and deserted appear- 
ance.^ Sir John Pomeraie, or Pomeroy, who took part in 
the christening with Joan, his wife, was a neighbour of 
Norman descent living at Berry Pomeroy, a stately castle, of 
which the ruins are to be seen at the summit of a high cliff 
three miles south of Totnes. The Sir William Pomeroy of 
the year 1549 led the insurgent Catholic gentry and peasantry 
of Devonshire against the Protestant Reform Government, 
and the Pomeroy estates were then confiscated for that 

John Holland and his elder brother, Richard, and his 
younger brother, Edward, and their sister, Constance, were 
bred as children at Dartington, and sported by the banks 
of the Dart, and rode their ponies about the lovely Devon 

^ The present Champernownes, however, assumed the name, inheriting the 
place through a female descent. The last in the male line died in 1774. 


country. John soon received royal favours, notwithstanding 
his father's treason of 1400. After all, the boy was the nephew 
of Henry IV, and the first cousin of Henry V. The latter 
young hero succeeded to the throne on March 20, 1413, 
when John was nineteen, and made him on the corona- 
tion occasion a knight of the new Order of the Bath. 
John took the symbolic bath, with fifty other novices of the 
Order, on April 8. All night they watched their arms in 
the chapel of the Tower, and next morning rode as escort 
to the King through the City by way of Cheapside to 
Westminster Abbey for the Coronation. 

In 1415, John Holland was made Knight of the Garter ; 
and in 1417, his elder brother having died, the Earldom of 
Huntingdon was restored to him by Act of Parliament. 
The lost Dukedom of Exeter was now with the Beauforts. 
Thomas Beaufort, brother-in-law of Margaret Holland, had 
been created Duke of Exeter for life only, on November 18, 
1410, and he did not die till December 30, 1426. It was this 
Duke who distinguished himself at the Battle of Agincourt, 
and is celebrated in Shakespeare's heroic verse. 

With the accession of Henry V, glorious times had 
come for loyal kinsmen of the House of Lancaster. Henry IV 
had come into power partly upon the tide of opposition 
to the peace with France policy espoused by Richard II 
and his Holland brethren, and had said to his first council : 
' Now w^e will have peace with the Flemings and war with 
every one else.' But his throne had been too insecure, and 
threatened by too many internal conspiracies, to allow him 
to gratify the dominant English passion for invasion of 
France. Probably he desned it little himself ; he had 
had very friendly relations with the House of France ; 
and he seems to have cherished a vague idea of crusading 
against the Turkish infidels. With the accession of Henry V 
— young, handsome, and popular, with his laurels to win — the 


lovers of war were again in the ascendant, and the Orleanist- 
Burgundian feud beyond the sea gave an opportunity for 
a re-assertion of the EngHsh claims. 

Lord Bacon, in his ' Discourse of the Government of 
England,' observes that ' Scotland was a country yet in- 
competent for the King's appetite. France was the fairer 
mark and better game, and though too big for the English 
gripe, yet the Eagle stooped and spread himself so well 
as within six years he fastened on the sword and sceptre 
and a daughter of France, and might have seized the Crown, 
&c.' In Bacon's time it was still unnecessary to put forward 
great moral reasons for war. 

In 1414 the King held a Parliament at Leicester, and the 
question of foreign policy was discussed. The Archbishop of 
Canterbury advocated the invasion of France to subdue that 
kingdom to the British Crown. It is alleged by a chronicler 
that he did this in order to divert attention from a Bill for 
the confiscation of some monastic lands. He was opposed 
by the Nevill, Earl of Westmorland, warden of the Marches, 
who argued that Scotland should first be conquered, quoting 
the saying : ' He who France would win, must with Scotland 
first begin.' John Holland, or perhaps his eldest brother, not 
yet dead, seems to have replied, and the assembly voted for 
war with France by acclamation, shouting: 'War, war, 
France, France.' 

On June 16, 1415 — almost exactly four hundred years 
before the day of Waterloo — young Holland was riding 
with his royal cousin through the City of London after a 
service at St. Paul's Cathedral, and down the road to 
Southampton. Near Winchester, in the Bishop's Hall 
at Wolvesey Castle, the King received the French Embassy, 
which had come in hot haste via Dover to negotiate, and 
had followed the Court from London along the south-western 
road. ' The King,' says the chronicler, ' leant against a 


table, bareheaded and clad from head to foot in cloth of gold, 
with a chair placed beside the throne, which was splendidly 
draped with gold trappings. At his right hand stood his 
three brothers, together with the Duke of York, Sir John 
Holland, and others ; and on his left, the Chancellor, Bishop 
Beaufort, together with Bishops Courtenay and Langley, who 
introduced the envoys, all of whom knelt as they entered.' 
Henry received the envoys again on the next day, and gave 
them a banquet. Negotiations continued until July 6, and 
then broke down. The Frenchmen offered much, but were 
not able to accede to the immense English demand lor 
the best half of France — all Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou, 
Touraine, Poitou, and Maine. 

At Southampton, the King discovered a new Yorkist 
plot against his throne and life. The leading conspirators 
were Richard, Earl of Cambridge, brother to the Duke of 
York and cousin to the King, Lord Scrope of Masham, 
and Sir Thomas Grey of Heton. An inquest of twelve 
jurors of the county found that the Earl of Cambridge and 
Sir Thomas Grey had conspired to proclaim the Earl of 
March as King, and to call in a Scottish army, and that 
Lord Scrope was guilty of treason also. Grey was forthwith 
beheaded, but Cambridge and Scrope claimed trial by their 
peers, and a commission was appointed on which John 
Holland sat, and these lords were also found guilty and 
beheaded. Thus it was John Holland's duty to assist 
in condemning to death the Earl of Cambridge, who was 
the stepson of his first cousin, Joan Holland, and Lord 
Scrope, who was the same Joan's present husband. The 
Duke of York, no doubt, was behind this conspiracy, but 
nothing could be proved against him. The man who, as 
Earl of Rutland, had been an appellant against Gloucester, 
Arundel, and Warwick, who had shared in the honour and 
plunder derived from that stroke of state, who had been 


loved by Richard and had forsaken him on his fall, had then 
joined in the conspiracy of the Hollands, and had betrayed 
them to Henry IV, who had conspired against the King in 
the Mortimer plot, and had been denounced by his own 
sister and given her the lie, was really capable of anything. 
He escaped, for the time being, from punishment of his 
sins and treacheries, and went on to Agincourt, where he 
was one of the very few Englishmen of rank who fell. He 
was knocked down by a stroke from the battle-axe of the 
gallant Duke d'Alencon, who had cut his way to the Royal 
standard and to Henry V himself. The Duke of York was 
not wounded by the blow, but, being fat, was smothered 
inside his armour in the press : ' smouldered to death,' says 
the chronicler, ' by much hete and thronggidd.' He well 
deserved this end for his base betrayal of the Hollands. 

After these executions, Henry V crossed the Channel 
with about 30,000 men and besieged Harfleur, which sur- 
rendered on September 22 ; then marched for Calais with 
9000 men, and on his way won the Battle of Agincourt. 
Holland took a leading part in the siege of Harfleur, but it 
does not appear whether he was with that division of the 
army which won that glorious victory. 

In the autumn of this year the young Earl of Huntingdon 
was made a Knight of the Garter, filling, curiously enough, 
the vacancy caused by the death of Thomas, Earl of Arundel 
— the same who, as a vindictive boy, had presided over the 
execution of Huntingdon's father, fifteen years earlier, 
and had made that triumphant entry into London preceded 
by the head of his foe. The following year, 1416, there was 
a banquet of the Order at Windsor — famous because it was 
honoured by the presence of Sigismund, the Holy Roman 
Emperor, who was installed as a knight. The Emperor 
landed at Dover on May 1, and on the 2nd was escorted 
by 800 men of his own Imperial cavalry and many great 


Oritrinal Seal measures 2f inolies in diameter 


English lords, of whom Huntingdon was one, to Canterbury, 
and thence by short stages in four days along the Roman 
road to London, there to meet the victor of Agincourt. 

In the same summer of 1416, John Holland had a com- 
mission at sea with the Duke of Bedford, Henry's brother, 
and they relieved Harfleur, which was being besieged by 
the French. In 1417, the Earl of Huntingdon, as Holland 
had now formally become, was sent by the King to clear 
the Channel of hostile ships before the second expedition 
made the passage. 

' The King,' says the chronicler, ' before he crossed over 
himself, sent the Earl of Huntingdon to search and scour 
the seas. The lusty Earl, called John Holland (son to 
the Earl of Huntingdon, otherwise Duke of Exeter, beheaded 
in the time of Henry IV, and cousin to the King), with a 
great many ships, searched the sea from the one coast to 
the other, and in conclusion encountered with nine of 
those great carracks of Genoa, the which the Lord Jacques 
the Bastard had retained to serve the French King, and 
set on them sharply.' 

After a running fight for most of a summer's day, three 
of the carracks and the Lord Jacques himself were captured, 
three were bulged in and left as wrecks, and three got away. 
Huntingdon then returned to Southampton, where he 
found the King, who thanked him greatly. In 1418, Hunting- 
don commanded one side of the English investing army 
at the long siege of Rouen. The city was reduced by famine 
to surrender on January 16, 1419. Later in that year, in 
May, he was with Henry during the negotiations with the 
French near Meulan, on the Seine. In July he took part in 
the capture of Pontoise. Then he was Governor of Gournai, 
in Normandy, and ravaged the country thereabouts, ' with 
fire and sword.' In 1420 he besieged Clermont unsuccess- 
fully and ravaged those regions also. In the same year 


he was in a battle near Mons, in which the French were 
severely defeated. The agreement was now made with the 
French King by which Hemy- V was to marn^ his daughter 
Catharine, and be the next heir to the Kingdom of France, 
the Dauphin being set aside. In December 1420. Henry 
entered Paris in state with the King of France. The two 
kings rode in from Corbeuil side by side. They were im- 
mediately followed by Henr\-'s brothers, the Dukes of 
Clarence and Bedford. In the next group rode John Holland, 
Earl of Huntincrdon. first cousin of the Kincr of England. 
Then came a long retinue of English and French lords. 
Philip. Duke of Burgundy. Henr\-'s powerful ally, and the 
richest Prince in Europe, rode at the head of a splendid 
procession of his own. They were met at the gate by repre- 
sentative citizens of Paris, and passed through streets 
bright with tapestry and rich with cloths of divers colours. 
Then met them a procession of clergy, and conducted the 
two kings to Xotre Dame, where they made their orisons 
before the High Altar. Wine flowed night and day in 
the streets, and the people, freed, as they vainly thought, 
from the horrors and privations of war, shouted for joy. 
Are not all these tilings related in the chronicles of Jean 
de Wa^Tin, seigneur of Forestel, of Enguerrand de Mon- 
strelet, and others ? 

The Dauphin and his party continued to resist the 
transfer of the succession to the Crown of France. In 1421 
the Earl of Huntingdon was in the Angevin country with a 
force commanded by the Duke of Clarence, his own maternal 
first cousin, and the husband of his first cousin, Margaret 
Holland, and brother of Hemy* V. On INIarch 22, the English 
— a fashionable and aristocratic company of warriors — were 
chasing a mixed force of French led by the Seigneur de 
la Fayette, and 5000 Scottish allies led by the Earl of 
Buchan. The English leaders and horsemen, pressing 


too rapidly upon their retreating foes, left their indispensable 
bowmen behind, and got into marshy ground by a river. 
Then the enemy, seeing their advantage in numbers and 
position, and the absence of the dreaded archers, suddenly 
turned and assailed them. Twelve hundred English were 
killed, among them the Duke of Clarence ; and 300 
were taken prisoners, among them the Earl of Huntingdon 
and his cousin, the Earl of Somerset. It was a rich haul 
for the French and Scots. It was, financially, unlucky 
for them that Clarence was killed, not taken. He was 
killed as he was trying to remount his horse after a 
fall, with a spear, by John Swinton, a Scot, and he had 
round ' his helmet a circlet of precious stones,' which the 
Scot took, and sold to John Steward at Derby for 1000 
angels. Huntingdon ransomed himself, but the price which 
he had to pay impaired his fortune, and, at a later date, 
he applied for a grant from the Crown :on '.this account. 

Henry V died at Vincennes on August 31, 1422, and 
Henry VI, at nine months old, became King of England 
and France under the recent treaty. The Duke of Bedford, 
his uncle, was made Regent or ' Protector ' by Parliament, 
with a council to assist him. The Dauphin, Charles, on the 
other side, was proclaimed King of France at Poitiers, and 
so the war went on, with, at first, new successes for the 

The Earl of Huntingdon, after his costly release, con- 
tinued to flourish during the Regency. In 1430 he was 
retained to serve the Crown, with three knights, seventy- 
six men-at-arms, and 240 archers ; crossed from Dover to 
Calais, and was sent with a force, by the Duke of Bedford 
commanding in France, to assist the Burgundians at the 
siege of Compiegne. It was during this siege, before 
Huntingdon's arrival, that the wondrous maid, Joan of 
Arc, was captured during a sortie from the gates. 


The Earls of Huntingdon and Arundel commanded the 

English reinforcements — about 2000 in number. In October, 

4000 French advanced in order to revictual the town. 

The Burgundian-English besiegers marched three miles 

to meet them, and there was some fighting in the forest, 

towards the old castle of Pierrefonds. The French found 

a way into the town with provisions, and they made a 

successful sortie upon the siege works of their enemy. The 

English and Burgundians quarrelled, and Huntingdon 

and Arundel marched away declaring that the pay to the 

English promised by the Burgundians was in long arrear. 

Consequently the Burgundians, in face of the increased 

French, had to retire also, and so much in haste that they left 

their valuable siege artillery behind. In the following year, 

1431, the Earl of Huntingdon was doubtless present 

when the nine-year-old boy, Henry VI, was crowned 

King of France by Cardinal Beaufort in Notre Dame in 

Paris. The affair was not a success, and the Parisians 

grumbled much that the festivities were so meagre and badly 


The failure of the long siege of Compiegne was, after 
Orleans and Rheims, the most important sign of the turn 
of the tide against the English-Burgundian allies in France. 
The Burgundians grew weary of endless war, and the 
English had a series of small disasters and loss of places. In 
1435 the Earl of Huntingdon was one of the English Ambas- 
sadors sent to the Court of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, at 
Arras, to assist at the negotiations for peace which were 
then taking place between the Burgundians and the French. 
In order to maintain his dignity and to impress the foreigners, 
Huntingdon obtained licence from the Crown to carry with 
him gold, silver, plate, and jewels, twenty-four pieces of 
woollen cloth, and other things to the value of £6000. The 
other members of the Embassv were Cardinal Beaufort, 


Bishop of Winchester, the Archbishop of York,^ the Bishop 
of St. Davids, the Earl of Suffolk, William Lyndewoode, 
Lord Privy Seal, and four others. Their instructions were 
to offer the French all France south of the Loire, except 
Gascony and Guyenne, and, if they would not accept this, 
to offer next that the French should retain all that they 
actually possessed, and nothing more. 

This congress, held at Arras from July to September 
1435, was a very great affair. It had been initiated by the 
Pope and the Council then sitting at Bale, who were anxious, 
as the Church authorities had been throughout these long 
wars, to terminate the miseries and impoverishment of 
France, and to re-unite Christian Princes against the ever- 
advancing Turks who threatened Constantinople both 
from the south and the north. The Papal Legation arrived 
towards the end of July at Arras, attended by fifty 
horse. The great Duke Philip rode into his good town 
of Arras at the head of a glittering cavalcade of 800 
horse. The Duchess and her son arrived another day, well 
attended by valiant knights and lovely Burgundian ladies. 
The English Embassy brought 500 horse. On July 31, 
arrived the French Ambassadors with 900 horse. There 
were also diplomatic agents from the Emperor of the West, 
and from Sicily, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, and the 
Italian Republics. It was the first great European peace 

Jean la Fere, the Burgundian chronicler, was there — 
enjoying himself very much. 

' On this day,' he says, ' there entered into the said 
town of Arras, the Bishop of Liege, accompanied by noble 
knights, squires, gentlemen, and others, richly apparelled, 
to the number of 246 horse [all white horses, says another 

^ This Archbishop was John Kemp, of the Kemps of Olantigh in Kent. He 
was afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. 


account], and went to the hotel of the Duke. On the same 
day the English Embassy entered the town of Arras, for which 
cause the Duke mounted on horseback to go and meet them 
very nobly accompanied by his servants, counts, barons, 
knights, and squires. Likewise there assembled all the 
Cardinals, and all the Archbishops and Bishops, who were 
in the said town, and went to meet the said Embassy. In 
which Embassy were the Cardinal of Winchester, the Count 
of Suffolk, the Count of Huntingdon, and several others 
who came from the Kingdom of England.^ All the said 
company accompanied them as far as the Church of Notre 
Dame in the City, where the said Cardinals and Lords of 
England were lodged. And there great honours and reve- 
rences were made, and then they separated. The Cardinal 
of Winchester and the Count of Huntingdon were nobly 
accompanied by noble barons, knights, and squires, very 
richly and notably apparelled and mounted, to the number 
of 500 horse or thereabouts.' 

The Duke of Burgundy, three or four days later, gave 
a dinner at his hotel — ' a very noble dinner,' says Jean la 
Yere — ' to which were invited the noble lords of England, 
the ambassadors. At the high table sat, in this order, the 
Archbishop of York, the Cardinal of Winchester, the Duke, 
the Duke of Guelders, the Bishop of Liege, the Duke of 
Vuillon, the Count of Suffolk, the Count of Huntingdon ; and 
then at the other tables, according to their rank, the noble 
barons, knights, and squires,' and among them, Jean le 
Fere, making his notes. ' How they were served,' he adds, 

^ Jean la Fere may have mistaken the Archbishop of York for the Cardinal- 
Bishop of Winchester, since it seems that the latter did not arrive till later, 
towards the end of August. According to Enguerrand de Monstrelet, the Earl of 
Huntingdon did not come at first, but with the Cardinal. It was difficult to be 
accurate in those things when there were no morning newspapers or printed lists 
at banquets. See Barante, Dues de Bourgogne, vol. i. p. 560, and Sir James Ramsay, 
Lancaster and York. 


' need not be asked, for the Duke, while he lived, was a 
treasure of honour.' 

From July to September, 480 years ago, the ancient 
town of Arras overflowed with rich attire, beauty, gal- 
lantry, love-making, and diplomacy. The proceedings were 
enlivened by jousts and dancing. The congress met for 
business on August 31, in the hall of the Abbey of St. Waast, 
the Cardinal of Santa Croce presiding in the name of the 
Pope. The French offered that if the English would re- 
nounce their claim to the French throne, and give up Paris 
and other possessions, they should be allowed to keep Aqui- 
taine. Afterwards they offered to cede also the dioceses of 
Avranches, Bayeux, and Evreux in Normandy, if the English 
would also release without ransom their princely captive, 
Charles, the poetic Duke of Orleans. The crisis came 
in the last week of August and the first of September, after 
the arrival of Cardinal Beaufort, who was seen one day 
arguing so hotly with the Duke of Burgundy that perspi- 
ration streamed down his face. The final offer of the English 
was that each side should retain the possessions which they 
actually held. This the French refused, and the English 
Embassy left Arras on September 6. Negotiations, how- 
ever, went on between the French and Burgundians, and 
led to a formal treaty of peace between them, disastrous 
to the English, who were not able to hold their possessions 
in France without allies. On April 10 in the following 
year (1436) they were badly defeated at St. Denis, and, 
three days later, lost Paris under the combined effect of an 
assault from without the city and a popular rising from 
within. The Parisians were delighted to be rid of them. 
According to a French chronicler, the people said : ' Ah ! 
one could see the English were not in France to stay. They 
have never been seen to sow a field of wheat, or build a 
house ; they destroyed their lodgings without ever thinking 


of repairing them. No one but their Regent, the Duke of 
Bedford, cared for making buildings and giving work to 
the poor. He was worth more than them, and would have 
wished for peace, but the natural character of these English 
is always to make war with their neighbours ; also they 
all come to a bad end ; and, thank God, more than 70,000 
of them have already died in France.' Enguerrand de 
Monstrelet, writing of the final campaign of Charles VII, 
says : ' It was evident that Heaven was against the 
English, and they were deserving of it ; for it is true 
that they have always encroached on their neighbours, as 
well in the Kingdom of France, as in Scotland, Ireland, 
Wales, and elsewhere. Many violences have been most 
unjustly done by them.' Within fifteen years from the 
treaty at Arras, the English had lost every place they 
had ever held in France, except Calais. Cardinal Beaufort 
would have done far better to close with the offer of Aquitaine 
and a handsome slice of Normandy.^ But a curse was now 
upon the English. 

In 1436 Huntingdon was joined in a commission with 
the Earl of Northumberland to guard the ' east and west 
borders ' towards Scotland. He was also made Lord High 
Admiral of England and Lieutenant of Aquitaine. In 1438 
he was retained to serve the King in Guyenne for six years, 
with sixteen knights, 280 men-at-arms, and 2000 archers. 
The English in Guyenne were much harassed by soldiers of 
fortune, who collected ' companies ' and were in pay of the 
French King or lived on the country. One day Lord Hun- 
tingdon found himself in presence of such a force captained 
by Rodrigue de Villandrando, son of a poor escudero, or 
squire, near Valladolid, who had become a famous partisan 

^ This Cardinal was a very mundane prelate, and the terrible chief responsibility 
for the burning of Joan pf Arc, now Beata, rests on him. He might well, as he did, 
order to be written on his tomb in Winchester Cathedral : ' Tribularer si nescierem 
misericordias tuas ' (" I should be troubled did I not know Thy mercies '). 


leader. Huntingdon wished to see him — curious to know 
what kind of man it was who had raised himself from a 
low estate to power and glory — and invited him to an inter- 
view at a place between the two armies on the banks of a 
stream called the Leyre. The Spaniard rode up to the spot. 

' I wished to see you in person,' said Huntingdon, ' since 
the fates have brought us together here. Will it please 
you to eat a few mouthfuls of bread and drink a cup or 
two of wine with me ? And after that, the battle will fare 
as it please God and my lord St. George.' 

But the Captain Rodrigue replied : ' If that is all you 
wish, it is certain that I will not do so, for, should fortune 
make us encounter in this fight, I should lose a great part 
of the anger I ought to have in fighting. I should strike 
my sword less fiercely against thine, remembering that I 
had eaten bread with thee.' 

Lord Huntingdon, according to the Spanish chronicler, 
was so much struck by these words and by the look of the 
speaker, that, because of them, and also because his force 
held the worse position, he decided not to fight on that 
occasion, although superior in numbers, saying, according 
to the Spanish chronicler : ' One had best not fight with a 
Spanish head at the time of its fury.' (' Non es de pelear 
con cabeza espanola en tiempo de su yra.') This invitation 
to a drink before battle seems to have been a practice of 
the sportsman-like English. Even the great Duke of Bedford 
sent a herald with a like invitation to the Franco-Scottish 
commander, Douglas, before the Battle of Verneuil. But 
the serious Spaniard regarded fighting as more of a business 
and less of a game than did the English.^ 

In 1441 Huntingdon presented a petition to the King 

1 This account is taken from the Spanish chronicler Hernando del Pulgar, 
quoted in the Rodrigue of M. Quicherat. The Spanish account says that the 
Englishman was Talbot, but M. Quicherat shows by dates that this was an error 
and that it must have been Huntingdon. 


stating that the lands which King Richard had granted to 
his father to maintain his dignity as Earl were then worth 
2000 marks a year, but now only 500, which shows that 
these estates, or some of them, had long ago been restored 
after confiscation. Also that he had been put to heavy 
expense for his ransom when taken prisoner in France in 1421 
on the King's service. He was accordingly given 500 marks 
a year, charged on the port revenues of London, Bristol, 
and Hull. In the same year he was made one of a Royal 
Commission, whose reference was to inquire ' of all manner 
of treason and sorceries which might be hurtful to the King's 

The Earl of Huntingdon was, in politics, opposed to 
his half -uncle, the haughty Cardinal Beaufort. Humphrey, 
Duke of Gloucester, addressed in 1440 a protest to the King 
in which, amongst other complaints against the Cardinal, 
he alleged that the Cardinal and the Archbishop of York 
' have had and have the governance of your Highness, 
which none of your true liegemen ought to usurp, nor take 
upon them, and have also estranged from your Highness, 
me your sole uncle, my cousin of York, my cousin of Hunting- 
don, and many other lords of your kin, to have knowledge 
of any great matter that might touch your high estate.' ^ 

On January 6, 1443, John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, 
attained what was, probably, the main object of his ambition. 
He was created Duke of Exeter, and so recovered the title 
which his father had borne from 1397 to 1399. The warrant 
gave him the privilege that he and his heirs male should 
' have place and seat in all parliaments and councils ' next 
after the Duke of York and his heirs male. In 1446, the 
Duke of Exeter was made Lord High Admiral for life, and 

^ Lord Bacon calls this Cardinal Beaufort ' so great a man both for birth, parts 
of nature, riches, spirit, and place as none before him had ever had the like ; for he 
was both Cardinal, Legate, and Chancellor of England.' 


in 1447, Constable of the Tower of London, which was the 
last of the numerous high appointments in his very success- 
ful career. 

The Duke of Exeter was thrice married, in each case 
to a widow. His first wife was Anne, widow of the Edmund 
Mortimer, Earl of March, who had died young without 
children, the son of Roger, Earl of March, and his wife, 
Alianora Holland. Anne was the daughter of Edmund, 
Earl of Stafford, the younger brother of that Ralph Stafford, 
whom John Holland, first Earl of Huntingdon had killed 
in a fit of passion at Beverley. Thus the second John 
Holland married the niece of his father's victim. By her 
he had a son named Henry Holland, who became third 
Duke of Exeter, in whose unhappy fate, as in that of the 
third Earl of Kent, who also married a Stafford, the super- 
stitious might have seen a curse in this alliance between 
Staffords and Hollands.^ 

Anne's mother was a daughter of Thomas Plantagenet, 
Duke of Gloucester ; so that Anne was a cousin of Henry V. 
She died in 1432. Shortly afterwards, Huntingdon married 
Beatrice, widow of Thomas, Earl of Arundel — ^that same 
Earl whom the first John Holland had held in cus- 
tody as a boy, and who had presided at his execution. 
Beatrice was an illegitimate, or perhaps legitimated, daughter 
of John I, King of Portugal, by Donna Agnese Perez. By 
her, Exeter had a daughter called Anne, who married 
first, John, Lord Nevill, eldest son of the first Earl of West- 
morland, who died before his father, and secondly Sir John 
Nevill, the uncle of her first husband. Sir John was slain 

^ The Sta£Eord8 were an unlucky race. They took first the Lancastrian and 
then the Yorkist side. They became at this time Dukes of Buckingham, an ill- 
fated title whether borne by them or afterwards by the Villiers. The first Duke 
of Buckingham was put to death by Richard III, and the second Duke by Henry 
VIII. The Staffords came to an obscure and melancholy end in the seventeenth 
century, having been great people since the Norman conquest. 


at Towton battle in 1461, leaving, by Anne Holland, a son, 
Ralph, who became third Earl of Westmorland. From 
him descended the Nevill Earls of Westmorland do^vn to 
Earl Charles, who took part in the Catholic rising against 
Queen Elizabeth in 1570, was attainted and lost his earldom. 
He died in France, in exile, in 1584, leaving only daughters. 

Beatrice, Countess of Huntingdon, died at Bordeaux on 
October 23, 1439, and was buried by her first husband at 
Arundel. Huntingdon then married, lastly, Anne, widow of 
Sir John Fitz Lewis, and, before that, widow of Sir Richard 
Hankford. She was daughter of John Montacute, third 
Earl of Salisbury, who married Eleanor Holland of the 
Kent line, and was slain at Orleans. The Duke of Exeter 
left no children by his third wife, and had only the two 
legitimate children, Henry and Anne, already mentioned. 
But he had two bastard sons, William and Thomas, to 
each of whom he left an annuity of £40 by his will. 

The Duke of Exeter died on August 5, 1447, at the age of 
fifty-three. He was the most long lived, the most successful, 
and the most prudent of his fortunate-unfortunate line. 
The chronicler, Thomas of Elmham, calls him ' circumspectae 
probitatis miles nobilissimus, militaris industriae multiplici 
fulgore coruscans, leonini pectoris magnanimitate praeful- 
gidus.' The style is flamboyant, like that of the co-tempo- 
rary architecture, but it expresses the fact that this Holland 
was a cool-headed, trustworthy, and brave soldier, who 
deserved his rewards. He was happy in the era of his active 
career lying between the storms of the reign of Richard II 
and the Wars of the Roses, and, coinciding with energy turned 
to foreign war, and with the duration of English Empire in 

By his will, dated July 16, 1447, he directed his body 
to be buried in a chapel of the Church of St. Catharine, beside 
the Tower of London, at the north end of the High Altar, 


in a tomb there ordained for him and Anne, his first wife, as 
also for his sister Constance, and Anne, his other wife, then 
living. He bequeathed to the High Altar of the said church 
a cup of byril garnished with gold, hearts, and precious stones, 
to use for the Sacrament ; also a chalice of gold, with the 
whole furniture of his chapel. And he appointed that another 
chalice, two candlesticks of silver, with two pair of vestments, 
a IMass-book, a pax-bred, and a pair of cruets of silver should 
be delivered to that little chapel, where he so intended to be 
buried with his wife and sister, for the priests that should 
celebrate divine service therein, and pray for their souls. 
To the priest and clerks, and other of the House of St. Catha- 
rine, for their great labour and observance on the day of his 
obit, and the day of his burying, he bequeathed forty marks, 
ordaining that four honest and cunning priests should be 
provided, yearly and perpetually, to pray for his soul in the said 
chapel, and for the soul of Anne, his wife, the soul of his sister 
Constance, and the soul of Anne, his present wife, when she 
should pass out of this world, and for the souls of all his 
progenitors. To his daughter, Anne, he bequeathed his white 
bed with popinjays, &c. — the same solemn white bed, perhaps, 
which John of Gaunt in his will bequeathed to his daughter 
Elizabeth, Duchess of Exeter. 

The Duke of Exeter's third wife, Anne Montacute, lived 
until the year 1457. In her will, made April 20 that year, 
may be discerned a touch of the coming change of religion in 
England, towards which Lord Salisbury, her father, had 
inclined. She bequeathed her body to be buried in the same 
chapel, ' expressly forbidding her executors from making 
any great feast, or having a solemn hearse or any costly 
lights, or largess of liveries, according to the glory or vain 
pomp of the world, at her funeral ; but only to the worship of 
God after the discretion of Mr. John Pynchebeke, doctor 
of divinity, and one of her executors.' She bequeathed six 


and eightpence to the master of St. Catharine if he were 
present at the Dirige and Mass on the day of her burial, 
and made some small bequests to the priests, sisters, and 
bedesmen of that college. Her executors were ' to find an 
honest priest to say Mass, to pray for her soul, her lord's 
soul, and all Christian souls in the said chapel for seven years 
after her decease, for doing which he should have yearly twelve 
marks ; and to say daily. Placebo, Dirige, and Mass, when so 

The history of this Church of St. Catharine's by the Tower 
is curious. The Hospital and Church of St. Catharine was 
founded by Mathilda, the queen of King Stephen. It was 
to be the collegiate home of certain religious brethren and 
sisters, who were to celebrate divine offices and pray for 
souls, and the patronage and control was always to be in 
the hands of the reigning Queen of England. Philippa, 
queen of Edward III, was a great benefactress, and added 
to the endowments. Owing to this royal patronage, the 
Hospital escaped the storm of the Reformation. It was, 
indeed, at first suppressed, but placed upon a new charter 
by Queen Elizabeth. The Duke of Exeter's byril cup and 
golden chalice vanished in those days of plunder. The 
church was untouched by the Fire of London in 1666. In 
1825 it was necessary to remove the Church and Hospital 
buildings in order to make the London docks. New buil- 
dings and a new chapel were erected facing Regent's Park, 
near Gloucester Gate, and the tomb of John Holland, Duke 
of Exeter, was with great care and with mu(;h cost removed 
and set up against the north-eastern corner of this chapel. 
It is a strikingly fine monument, in the Late Pointed style, 
highly decorated with carvings of angels and strange beasts, 
and with coloured devices. Recumbent on the monu- 
ment are the figures of the Duke of Exeter, and two noble- 
looking ladies, all in perfect preservation, and evidently most 


faithful representations from life. The figure of the Duke 
lies on the outside of the table, and those of the two ladies 
on his left hand. All these figures wear coronets. Three 
leaden coffins were removed with the monument from St. 
Catharine's by the Tower. 

It is to be hoped that his skull was replaced in the coffin 
before it was removed. A contemporary journalistic account 
says : ' We were yesterday led to examine a tomb in the very 
ancient church of St. Catharine, which workmen are now 
pulling to pieces for the purpose of forming a new dock. 
It was the tomb of John, Duke of Exeter, who was, we 
believe, cousin to Henry V. His skull is now in the posses- 
sion of the surveyor. The cranium is small and retiring, 
which those who profess to be learned in such matters say 
is evidence of royalty and legitimacy, as well as of valour. 
The teeth are remarkably perfect.' ^ So may a great Duke's 
skull some day be handed round among workmen, and come 
into possession of a surveyor. 

The Duke of Exeter's will contemplated that he, his 
sister, and his first and third wives, should be buried under 
the same monument, his second wife having already been 
buried by her first husband at Arundel. But his sister was 
buried elsewhere, the Lady Constance Holland, who married 
first the Earl Marshal, commonly called second Duke of 
Norfolk, who was beheaded at York with Archbishop Scrope, 
in 1405, for conspiring against Henry IV, and afterwards she 
married Lord Grey of Ruthin. The two dames represented 
on the tomb are the Duke's first wife, Anne Stafford, and his 
third wife, Lady Anne Montacute. 

* The figure of the Duke on the tomb does not show a small and retiring 
cranium at all, but a fine straight forehead. Possibly the skull in question belonged 
to one of his wives. 



Richard Plantagenet of York : 

Let him that is a true-bom gentleman, 
And stands upon the honour of his birth, 
K he suppose that I have pleaded truth. 
From off this brier pluck a white rose with me. 

Somerset : 

Let him that is no coward, nor no flatterer. 
But dare maintain the party of the truth, 
Pluck a red rose from off this thorn with me. 

Shakespeaee, Henry VI, Pt. L Act II. 

Henry Holland was born in the Tower of London on 
June 27, 1430. We know something of his baptism from 
the evidence taken by the Inquisition made when he came 
of age. His aunt, the Lady Constance, widow of the Earl 
Marshal, Duke of Norfolk, carried him in her arms from 
the Tower to ' Cold Harbour,' and thence in a barge to 
St. Stephen's, Westminster, where he was christened. This 
house, called ' Cold Harbour,' is shown in a picture of London 
viewed from the south side, made in 1616, and is there 
underwritten ' Cole Harbour.' A large and lofty house 
it was, of several stories, with gables and small irregular 
windows, standing on the bank of the river, near All 
Hallows Lane, just east of the existing Cannon Street rail- 
way bridge. Stow, in his history of London, written at the 
end of the seventeenth century spells it ' Coal Harbour,' and 



gives its history in much detail. In the reign of Edward II 
the house, then spelled ' Cold Harbrough,' belonged to 
Sir John Abel, and after passing through other hands was, 
in 1397, the town house of John Holland, Earl of Hun- 
tingdon. It was ' the fair and stately house behind All Hallows 
Church in Thames Street,' where Richard II and his friends 
dined with John Holland before the eventful ride to Fleshy. 
Cold Harbour continued to be the to^wTi house of the Hol- 
lands of Huntingdon and Exeter, until this branch of the 
race ended in the Wars of the Roses. At one time, in the 
sixteenth century, it belonged to the Bishops of Durham, 
but the Crown deprived Bishop Tunstal of it in 1553, and 
gave it to the Earl of Shrewsbury. In the following century 
the then Earl of Shrewsbury — the house having fallen into 
decay and the situation being no longer in fashion — ' took 
it down, and in the place thereof built a great number of 
small tenements, now let out ' (says Stow) ' for great 
rents to people of all sorts.' The site is now covered with 
warehouses, and, although there are plenty of barges, 
none of them ever convey princely babes to fashionable 

Little is known of Henry Holland's further life until 
the Wars of the Roses began. He was married to Anne, 
daughter of the Duke of York, and sister to the Princes 
who afterwards became Edward IV and Richard III. A 
poet of the day, in a long account of that family, wrote : 

To the Duke of Excestre Anne married is. 
In her tender youth. 

He could not, like his ancestors for three generations, win 
early distinction in the wars in France, for by the time he 
was twenty-one, the English had been driven out of France. 
Their last hold on Normandy was lost in 1450, and they 
were expelled from their most ancient possession, Bordeaux, 


in 1453. Now they held not an acre oversea beyond 
Calais and its environs. Such was the end of their hun- 
dred years' effort to annex France, and of all the misery 
thereby caused. They now turned fierce swords against 
each other. 

In 1449, although but nineteen, the Duke of Exeter 
had, like his father before him, become Lord High Admiral. 
In this capacity he aided the Opposition Lords, Warwick 
and Salisbury, against the dominant Earl of Suffolk, a 
favourite of the beautiful and vigorous young Queen, Margaret 
of Anjou. When Suffolk was trying to escape to France, 
Exeter placed some ships of war at the disposition of the 
confederate lords. Suffolk was caught at sea and rudely 
beheaded by sailors of a barque called the ' Nicholas 
of the Tower,' off Dover. A few years later, Exeter 
appeared as a strong Lancastrian, and remained on that 
side till his death, although his wife was a lady of the 
House of York. 

Now began the Wars of the Roses, which ruined so many 
great families, and, among them, the House of Holland. In 
1453 when the Duke of Exeter — who was then, barring the 
York claim, heir-presumptive to the Crown — was in his twenty- 
fourth year. Queen Margaret bore on October 13, seven years 
after her marriage, a son, who was named Edward. The 
rumour spread that he was not really Henry's son, and his 
birth brought to a head the dormant question of the superior 
claim of the York family to the throne. The Lancastrians 
were led by the Duke of Somerset, the son of Margaret 
Holland, and grandson of John of Gaunt by the Katherine 
Swynford amour. At the close of 1453 the quarrel came 
to a crisis ; Somerset was sent to the Tower, and soon after- 
wards King Henry having fallen into an imbecile condition, 
Parliament declared Richard, Duke of York, Protector of 
the Kingdom. In 1454 Ralph Lord Cromwell 'demanded 


in full Parliament the surety of the peace of the Duke of 
York against Henry Duke of Exeter, the which was granted.' 
The Lancastrian nobles gathered round the Queen and in a 
few months she recovered power. Early in 1454 the Duke of 
Exeter was in the north, acting on her behalf. John Studeley 
wrote to the Pastons in Norfolk on January 19, 1454 : ' Item, 
the Duke of Exeter, in his own person, hath been at Tuxforth 
and Doncaster in the north country, and there the Lord 
Egremont met him, and the two been sworn together, and the 
Duke is come home again.' Somerset was set free, but the 
Duke of York, popular in the south, raised his standard and, 
on April 22, 1454, the Red Rose and the White fought in the 
streets and suburbs of St. Albans. The Duke of Somerset 
was slain and his followers defeated. Exeter is not named 
as having been in this action. On July 24 the Privy Council 
charged the Duke of York to keep the Duke of Exeter in 
custody in Pomfret Castle. In 1456 there was reaction, and 
the Duke of York had to resign the Protectorship. In 
January 1458, a conference between the high opposing nobles 
was held in London, and they arrived from the provinces 
attended by great armed retinues. The new Duke of 
Somerset and the Duke of Exeter, with 800 followers 
lodged outside Temple Bar and in Holborn. On March 27 
there was what the chronicler Fabian calls ' a dissimulated 
Loveday.' The King and Queen wearing crowns and royal 
robes attended by all the prelates and peers, walked in solemn 
state to St. Paul's Cathedral. The great lords were arranged 
in antagonistic couples. The Duke of Somerset and his foe 
the Earl of Salisbury headed the procession, and next came 
Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, and his cousin and enemy, 
Richard Nevill, Earl of Warwick. Behind the King, who 
walked alone, came the Duke of York holding Queen 
Margaret by the hand, which must have been a great trial 
to her. A poet of the time, foolishly happy, wrote in the 


unromantic and prosaic style of south-English folk-bards 
of all times : 

Our sovereign lord, God, keep alway ! 

And the Queen and Archbishop of Canterbury, 

And other that have laboured to make this loveday, 

O God ! Preserve them, we pray heartily. 

And London for them full diligently ; 

Rejoice England ! In concord and unity. 

This loveless love lasted not long. Almost the same 
day there was an affray in the London streets between 
Warwick's men and the King's. The Duke of Exeter had 
already been alienated because his hereditary command of 
the fleet had been taken away as part of the arrangement 
and given to the Earl of Warwick. Botomer, in his letter 
of February 1, 1458, to the Pastons, says : ' The Duke of 
Exeter hath taken great displeasure that my Lord Warwick 
occupieth his office, and taketh the charge of the keeping 
of the sea from him.' The Duke was inadequately 
appeased by the grant of £1000 from the exchequer, and 
henceforward was a most unswerving foe to the Yorkists, 
married though he was to Anne, daughter of Richard Duke 
of York. 

Exeter's deposition from command at sea was partly 
a concession to popular feeling, for in the preceding 
year, 1457, he had failed to protect the Channel Coast from 
French raids, under the able Pierre de Breze, Seneschal of 
Normandy, who had sacked Sandwich in Kent and burned 
Fowey in Cornwall. 

Civil dissensions came to a new crisis in 1459. Queen 
Margaret's friends raised a force in loyal Cheshire and Lanca- 
shire. The Duke of Exeter, Lord Beaumont, and others 
took the field, according to the well-informed and trust- 
worthy contemporary writer, Jean de Wavrin, at the head of 


15,000 or 16,000 men, all horse. On the other side, the 
Earl of Salisbury and his son Richard, Earl of Warwick, 
raised a more democratic force. Warwick was especially- 
successful in recruiting because he knew how to address 
the commoners in familiar and persuasive language. Their 
little army consisted of about 6000 or 7000 men, among 
whom there were only twenty-five knights, and no mounted 
men-at-arms. It was a plebeian force of archers. The two 
Earls came across the aristocratic army led by Exeter and 
Beaumont, at Blore Heath, on the borders of Derbyshire 
and Lancashire, on April 29, 1459. Their men took up a 
good position, entrenched and staked themselves in, and 
awaited attack. The Duke of Exeter charged with his division 
of horse, and was met by so vigorous an arrow fire that 
between five and six hundred of his men were killed or 
wounded. He withdrew out of range, charged again, and 
lost another hundred men. Lord Beaumont then dismounted 
his division — about four thousand in number — and advanced 
against the Yorkist position on foot, and fought for half an 
hour, but had the worst of it. One of his knights, who led 
five hundred men, was so much disgusted that Exeter's 
horse did not charge a third time, as he had expected, that he 
began to fight on the side of the Warwickers. In the end, 
the Lancastrians had lost Lord Audley, killed, and Lord 
Dudley, captured, and over two thousand men, and the 
Yorkists less than a hundred, and the latter retained pos- 
session of the field. It was the old story of the wars in 
France — the superiority of English bowmen over mounted 

The Duke of York with Salisbury and Warwick, then 
raised the rebel standard at Worcester. A royal army, 
with the King, advanced against them and pursued them to 
Ludlow, where the Yorkist force dissolved. In November 
1459, the King held a Parliament at Coventry, to which the 


Duke of Exeter was summoned as leading peer, and an Act 
of Attainder was passed against the Duke of York and his 
chief alKes. 

In January 1460 the Duke of Exeter was at York. In 
the French Records there is this curiously spelt document. 
' The yere of Our Lord, MCCCCLX, the XX day of Janvier 
at the City of York, in the presence of the most excellente 
Princess Margaret, Queen of England and of Ffrance and 
Lady of Ireland, by the lords whose names v/ere under- 
written hit was graunted and promysed that they shal 
labour by alle moyennes resonable witoute inconvenience 
to the moost high and migghty Prince Henry VI, King of 
England and of France and Lord of Ireland, thaire souverain 
lord that suche articles as were commoved at the College 
of Lyncluden in the royaulme of Scotland, the Vth day of the 
saide moneth, the yere above said, that it may please his grace 
they may take gude and effectual conclusion. Signe, Excester, 
Somerset, W. Byschof of Carlyls, Northumberland, West- 
moreland, Devonshire, John Coventry, Byschof Nevyll, 
H. Fitzhugh, Roos, Thomas Seymour, H. Dacre.' 

After the Yorkist dispersal at Ludlow, the Duke of York 
went to Ireland, and the Earl of Warwick to France, where he 
held possession of Calais against the Duke of Somerset, 
who lay outside the walls and tried in vain to recover the 
town. Warwick had some ships, including a large one 
which he obtained by descent on Sandwich Haven, and 
in the spring of 1460 sailed with his little fleet to 
Ireland to visit the Duke of York and concert a campaign. 
It was agreed that the Duke should land in the north, and 
the Earl in Kent. Warwick then returned towards Calais. 

The Duke of Exeter — who had been on business at York 
at the end of January — now again High Admiral, sailed west 
from Sandwich in Kent, with four great ' carracks ' — one of 
which, called the Grace Dieu, was his Admiral ship — and 


ten smaller ' caravel ' vessels. He swore a vow that Warwick, 
his enterprising cousin, should never get back to Calais. 
Off the Devon coast he came in sight of Warwick's 
numerically inferior squadron, and wished to engage. The 
wind was blowing from the south or south-west, and 
Warwick got to windward of Exeter. The Earl called 
together his captains and asked them if they would fight, 
and they replied joyously that they would like nothing better. 
Exeter got a different response from his captains. They re- 
fused to fight, turned about their ships, whether by his order 
or not, and ran ^vith the wind into Dartmouth. Warwick 
did not pursue, but passed on up Channel to Calais, for he 
had only just enough provisions left to last that distance. 

The chronicler, Grafton, says ' the captains of the Duke 
of Exeter's fleet murmured against him, and the mariners 
dispraised and disdained him, glad to hear of the Earl of 
Warwick's good success, by which occasion he neither would 
nor durst meddle once with the Earl's navy.' This, no doubt, 
is true. Warwick had done well at sea against the French as 
High Admiral, and had captured the hearts of the sailors ; nor 
could Exeter compete with him either in wealth and power of 
largess, or in ingratiating manners. Warwick was a good, 
bluff orator, and threw his money about generously, and was 
the popular hero along the shores of Kent and Essex and the 
Thames, and in all the jolly southern and midland taverns. 

The War of the Roses was essentially fought between the 
north and west on one side, and the south-east and midlands 
on the other ; a line of division of feeling which seems to rest 
on something racial, for it reappears at the Reformation, 
in the Civil War of the seventeenth century, and, more or 
less, in modern general elections.^ ' The Kentishmen,' 
says a good old chronicler, ' desired the Earl of Warwick's 

^ Sir Thomas Malory, a Lancastrian, says that they of London, Kent, Sussex, 
Surrey, Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk ' held the most part ' with the wicked Mordred, 
against King Arthur. 



return and longed for his coming.' They had not long to 
wait. Warwick landed, together with Edward, Earl of 
March, at Sandwich on June 20, 1460, and was met by the 
nobles and gentry of Kent and Archbishop Bourchier, 
whom he had already seduced at Calais, and then went on 
to London by Canterbury and Rochester. Thousands joined 
from the towns, and gentlemen and yeomen poured in from 
every side road to swell his army. Triumphantly he entered 
London on July 2, cordially received by the City authorities, 
and was reinforced by thousands of Londoners and Essex men. 
He left the Tower blockaded, and marched up the North Road 
— scene of most of the fighting in this war — to Northamp- 
ton, where the Lancastrians with King Henry had assembled 
some 50,000 men. Exeter, according to one account, was 
with them. After some parleying, there was a great battle, 
Warwick, with the Earl of March, assisted by the treachery 
of Lord Grey de Ruthin, who deserted to the Yorkists at 
the last moment, utterly defeated the Lancastrians. ' Ten 
thousand tall Englishmen,' says the old Tudor chronicler, 
Hall, ' were slain or drowned in attempting to pass the river, 
and King Henry himself, left all lonely and disconsolate, 
was taken prisoner.^ Queen Margaret fled into Wales, and 
there soon the Duke of Exeter came to join her. 

Now the Duke of York, returning from Ireland, entered 
London and claimed the throne by virtue of his descent 
from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, through that Duke's daughter 

^ Jean de Wavrin, who was living at the time in Northern France, and had the 
best sources of information, says that 12,000 Lancastrians were killed at North- 
ampton. Why, then, should Professor Oman of Oxford, living in the twentieth 
century, say, without giving his authority, that only 300 were killed here ? (See 
Political History of England, vol. iv. p. 393.) As to incidents in the Wars of 
the Roses, the present writer has mainly followed Wavrin, who was at this time 
completing his life and his chronicle. Internal evidence shows that he took 
great pains to be accurate by getting information from Englishmen who had 
been engaged in the affairs described, as also did his contemporary, de Comines. 


Philippa, and the Mortimers.^ This descent was superior 
to that of Henry VI, if descent through two female Hnks were 
admitted ; nor could any Englishmen deny this female prin- 
ciple upon which the English kings still claimed the throne 
of France. The House of Lords had to choose between the 
Parliamentary title of Lancaster and the legitimist claim 
of York. They compromised by agreeing that Henry VI 
should nominally retain the crown for life, but that on 
his death it should devolve not upon Edward, his son, but 
upon Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York. The proud and 
powerful lords of the Red Rose — the Northumberlands, Dacres, 
Nevills, and Cliffords — were of another opinion ; and Queen 
Margaret and Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, Avho had 
his father's death to avenge, were soon at the head of a new 
feudal army. They might have said in the words of Walter 
Scott's cavalier lay : 

Go tell the bold traitors in London's proud town 

That the spears of the North have encircled the Crown. 

Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, was with them — now 
thirty years old and a good warrior by land, whatever his 
failures by sea. He fought in the battle of Wakefield on 
December 30, 1460, where the Duke of York's southern army 
was gloriously defeated, himself slain, and his young son, 
Rutland, taken and killed by the fierce Lord Clifford. Exeter 
must have seen with mingled feelings the head of the Duke, 
father of his own young wife, scornfully adorned with a 
paper crown and spiked on a pole over a gate of York. 

This was the hour of Margaret's triumphant revenge. 
Lord Bacon observes in his ' Historical Discourse ' that ' wha 

^ The reader remembers, of course, the great fact that Lionel, Duke of Clarence, 
was third son of Edward III, John Duke of Lancaster fourth son, and Edmund, 
Duke of York fifth son, and that the second son, William of Hatfield, died without 


the French could not effect by arms in their own field, they 
did upon English ground by a Feminine Spirit, which they 
sent over to England to be their Queen, and, in one civil 
war, shedding more English blood by the English sword than 
they could formerly do by all the men of France, were revenged 
upon England to the full at the Englishmen's own charge.' 

Ill fortune has strangely attended English Kings who 
married French Princesses. Henry V died young, within 
three years from marriage ; Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, 
and Charles I were dethroned and murdered. 

The Duke of Exeter, ever loyal to the fierce Feminine 
Spirit, received a grant of the late Duke of York's Castle 
of Fotheringay, where his own wife, Anne, had been born 
in 1439. And now the victorious Margaret, with Somerset, 
Exeter, Northumberland, Clifford, and the rest, marched 
southward, and the northerners sacked every town on the 
road after they had crossed the Trent. On February 16, 
1461, they defeated Warwick's army, which lay across the 
road at St. Albans, and threatened London. The opportunity 
was lost owing to the attitude of the Londoners, and to 
the hesitation of gentle and religious Henry. He had been 
brought out of the Tower to battle by the Yorkists, had been 
recaptured on the field by his wife, had been shocked at the 
treatment of St. Albans by the northern troops, and liked 
not the idea of a sack of London. Relieving forces arrived, 
and the Lancastrians returned to Yorkshire with their 
King and their plunder. Edward, now Duke of York, only 
twenty-one years old — a vigorous fighting man, extremely 
good-looking, affable, and immensely popular among the 
southern English — at the request of a deputation of select 
peers and prelates and London citizens, enthroned himself 
at Westminster on March 4, as Edward IV. Parliament 
was not consulted by these Legitimists. Meanwhile, the 
Red Rose chiefs collected a great host round the warrior 


Queen and King Henry at York, and the White Rose 
King left London on March 12 and went north to fight 
them. When the armies met, the Lancastrians had about 
60,000 men, and the Yorkists between 40,000 and 50,000, 
but the numerical inferiority of the southerners was com- 
pensated by better training and archery. They were more 
disciplined and were led by veteran officers who had learned 
war in France. 

The first action was fought by Edward's vanguard 
on Saturday March 28, against a Lancastrian out-post, 
for the possession of the North Road Bridge, or Ferrybridge, 
across the river Aire. The Yorkists forced the passage 
by six o'clock that evening, and here the fierce and zealous 
Lord Clifford was killed by an arrow through his throat, 
together with some 3000 men on the two sides. Edward's 
army crossed the river all through that night, and ranged 
themselves in order of battle on the other side. 

The main body of the northern host marched from 
York, when news came of Edward's approach, and took 
up a position eight miles south of that city and two miles 
north of the Aire River, along a ridge between the villages 
of Towton and Saxton. The great battle began about nine 
o'clock on the morning of Palm Sunday. The northerners 
advanced with banners flying, and loud shouts of ' King 
Henry.' Exeter and Somerset commanded on the right, 
and the Earl of Northumberland led the centre, where floated 
the royal standard ; the Earls of Dacre and Devon com- 
manded on the left. The south wind blew a shower of 
snow-sleet in the faces of the Lancastrians and disconcerted 
the aim of their archers, while the shooting of the better- 
trained southern bowmen was all the more effective. The 
Lancastrian arrows fell short and stuck in the ground, im- 
peding the advance of their men-at-arms. But a rush of 
14,000 men, half of them Welsh, in Exeter's division, broke 


Lord Fauconberg's horse and drove them in flight for miles. 
On the left, Dacre and Devon pressed hard on Warwick, 
who was himself wounded. But in the centre, young King 
Edward prevailed, after a long and fierce fight, over the 
main Lancastrian host. 

' Here,' says the Burgundian writer, ' was the battle 
furious and the slaying great and pitiable, for the father 
spared not son, nor son the father.' At noon the Duke of 
Norfolk arrived with a fresh Yorkist contingent, and assailed 
the Lancastrians on their left flank. At the end of six hours 
of hacking and hewing, the Lancastrian centre and left, 
about three o'clock, were rolled up and driven into a little 
river (the Cock) to their right rear, and here was murderous 
killing and drowning. The stream ran, they say, so red with 
blood, that even the water of Wharfe River, into which 
it flowed two miles away, was discoloured. No fiercer, 
bloodier battle has ever been fought on English soil than that 
on this cold Palm Sunday, celebrated, as an old chronicler 
says, ' with lances instead of palms.' The Dukes of Exeter 
and Somerset escaped, probably because they led the ' victor 
vanward wing,' but Northumberland, Dacre, and Devon, 
and all the flower of the Red Rose nobles and gentlemen, and 
a vast multitude of their followers, perished this fatal day. 

' Witness Aire's unhappy water, 
Where the ruthless Clifford fell. 
And where Wharfe ran red with slaughter 
On the day of Towton's field. 
Gathering in its guilty flood 
The carnage and the ill-spilt blood 
That forty thousand lives could yield. 
Cressy was to this but sport, 
Poitiers but a pageant vain, 
And the work of Agincourt 
Only like a tournament.' ^ 
'■ Robert Southcy. 


This horrible disaster was, the Burgundian chronicler 
thinks, just retribution for the treason by which Henry IV, 
sixty-two years earlier, had deprived Richard II of the 
throne, and caused him to be murdered ; for, he remarks, 
' Chose mal acquise ne peult avoir longue duree.' 

William Paston, writing from London on April 4 to his 
brother, John Paston in Norfolk, says that ' a letter of cre- 
dence,' sent by King Edward 'under his sign manual ' to his 
mother, the Duchess of York, had arrived at eleven o'clock 
that day, Easter Eve, and ' was seen and read by me, William 
Paston.' The letter was probably despatched from York on 
the Wednesday or Thursday, after the heralds had had time 
to count the dead and to identify their chiefs. It announced 
that the King had ' won the field,' and had upon the day 
after the battle ' been received into York with great solemnity 
and processions,' and that ' King Henry, the Queen, the 
Prince, the Duke of Somerset, Duke of Exeter, and Lord 
Roos be fled into Scotland and they be chased and followed.' 
This official despatch gave the names of the leading 
chiefs slain on both sides, and added that 28,000 other 
of the opponents had been slain, as ' numbered by the 
heralds.' ^ The number of the rank and file slain on the 

^ See Fenn's Paston Letters, vol. i. p. 216. Croyland says that those who 
buried the dead said that, taking both sides, 33,000 fell. Wavrin,the well-informed 
contemporary, says that the Lancastrians had 60,000 men and that, on both sides, 
36,000 were killed. Hearn's fragment says 33,000 ; Fabian, 30,000 ; Hall, for the 
two days' fighting, 36,776. The chronicler Stow (1631) says ' the whole number 
slain was accounted by some to be 33,000, but by others some 35,091 ; The precision 
of that last ' one ' is pleasing. The official figure for the Lancastrian dead, given in 
Edward's despatch, is probably about correct. But since there is this first-rate 
evidence that 28,000 Lancastrians were kiUed, why does Professor Oman say in 
the Political History of England, vol. iv . p. 406, that there were only ' 15,000, or 
20,000,' of them in the battle ? Has modern Oxford some inspired source of 
information better than that of the heralds who actually counted the dead ? 
There are good reasons for thinking that in the fifteenth century the population 
of many parts of rural England was much greater than it is now. Except at 
harvest time there would have been no great difficulty in raising two armies of 
60,000 and 40,000 or 50,000 respectively for a four or five weeks' campaign. 


Yorkist side is not stated in this despatch, but, according to 
other accounts, amounted to something hke seven or eight 

The Duke of Exeter, after his flight from Towton Field 
to Scotland, tried, with his usual ill success, to head a resis- 
tance in Wales. Henry Wyndesore, writing from London on 
October 14, 1461, to John Paston at Norwich, tells him as an 
item of public news that ' all the castles and holds, both in 
South Wales and North Wales, are given and yielded up into 
the King's hand ; and the Duke of Exeter and the Earl of 
Pembroke are fied and taken the mountains, and divers 
lords with great puissance are after them. And the most 
part of gentlemen and men of worship are come in to the 
King.' It is not known what happened to the hunted 
fugitives among the autumnal Welsh mountains. 

Parliament now passed an Act to confirm Edward's 
right to the Crown, and Acts of Attainder against the Queen, 
the Dukes of Somerset and Exeter, the Earls of Northumber- 
land, Devonshire, Wiltshire, and Pembroke, the Lords 
Beaumont, De Roos, Rougemont, Dacre, Nevill, and 
Hungerford, and a hundred and fifty knights, esquires, 
and priests. Their estates were confiscated and divided 
among the chiefs of the victorious faction. A number 
of slain Lancastrian lords were included in the Act, in 
order that the ' corruption of blood ' effected thereby 
might bar any future claim by their heirs against the new 

The Dukes of Exeter and Somerset, however, seem to 
have succeeded in making, for the time, some kind of arrange- 
ment with the victorious Government, doing homage in 
exchange for part of their estates — at any rate, this was 
certainly the case with Somerset. But when undaunted 
Queen Margaret made her new attempt from France in the 
autumn of 1462, the Duke of Exeter joined her. Margaret 


was supplied by Louis XI of France with three ships and 
800 Frenchmen under Pierre de Breze, all landed in 
Northumberland, near Bamborough, on October 21. The 
Castles of Bamborough, Dunstanborough, and Alnwick, 
had already fallen into the hands of the northern Lancastrian 
lords. King Edward IV, an excellent soldier, marched 
north, and by January 6, 1463, had captured all three 
castles. Later in the year, Alnwick and Bamborough again 
fell into the hands of the Scot-aided Lancastrians. They 
besieged also Norham Castle, but Warwick and his brother, 
Lord Montague, relieved it. Margaret fled to Scotland, and 
eventually, in March 1464, went by sea to Sluys, thence to 
Bruges, where she lodged with the Carmelite nuns, and then 
to Barre in Lorraine. During these hunted wanderings, she 
and her son had fearsome adventures in the wilds of North- 
umberland, related by chroniclers, her abode in the generous 
robbers' cave, and so forth. She gave some account of them 
to the Duchess of Bourbon at St. Pol in the presence of 
Georges Chastellain, the herald of the Golden Fleece. Henry 
Holland, Duke of Exeter, was with the Queen in these 
wanderings, or part of them, and went with her to Sluys. 
After fighting so ardently and long against his usurping 
brother-in-law, the last representative of the once great 
House of Holland was now a completely ruined man. From 
1463 to 1470, like other Lancastrian lords who had not 
changed the colour of their rose, he lived destitute in foreign 
lands. The Burgundian chronicler, de Wavrin, says that at 
one time he was an exile in Ireland, but he was after this, at 
any rate, in Flanders. 

At first, some of the exiled Lancastrians received a slight 
assistance from the Duke of Burgundy. The glorious Duke 
Philip of Burgundy had married the Infanta of Portugal, 
whose mother was Philippa, daughter of John of Gaunt, 
Duke of Lancaster, and sister of Elizabeth, who married 


John Holland, first Duke of Exeter. The heart of the 
Duchess was English, and she had before his first mar- 
riage with a French princess, wished her son Charles to 
marry into the House of England. At one time she had 
wished him to marry Anne of York, who became Duchess 
of Exeter. 

Duke Philip was proud of his Lancastrian connection, 
and still more so was his son, the Count of Charolais, who had 
this blood in his veins. De Commines says that Charles 
of Charolais cordially hated the Yorkists after they had 
dethroned his nearest English relatives. But the Dukes of 
Burgundy, for trade and political reasons, as lords of the 
weaving Flemish cities supplied with English wool, were 
bound to keep on good terms with the de facto Government 
of England, and in 1467 Charles, who had lost his first wife, 
Isabelle de Bourbon, and succeeded in that year to the 
dukedom, entered into a contract of marriage with Margaret 
of York, sister of Edward IV, and sister, also, of Anne of 
York, the faithless wife of the exiled and ruined Duke of 
Exeter. Charles said, in 1467, to the Constable of St. Pol, 
who came to him on behalf of the King of France : ' Is it not 
true that my relationship and affections were for the House 
of Lancaster and for King Henry against the House of York 
and King Edward ? If now I wish to marry Madame 
Margaret, is it not necessity which has inspired me with this 
design ? ' 

This marriage, so fatal to the Lancastrians, was the 
more necessary because that deadly and subtle enemy of 
Burgundy, Louis XI, was soliciting the hand of Margaret of 
York for one of his sons. After this marriage, Charles of 
Burgundy, though hating the Yorkists as well as ever, had 
to be careful not visibly to favour the Lancastrian exiles 
or countenance their conspiracies. John Paston, the younger, 
was at Bruges on July 8, 1468, and wrote to his mother 


describing the marriage there of the Duke and Margaret of 
York.^ He says : ' The Duke of Somerset and his bands 
departed well beseen out of Bruges on the day before 
that my lady the Duchess came thither, and they say 
that he is [going] to Queen Margaret that was, and shall 
no more come here again, nor be holpen by the Duke.' 
This Somerset was Edmund Beaufort, the fourth Duke, 
son of Edmund who fell at St. Albans, and brother and 
successor of the third Duke, Henry Beaufort, who was 
beheaded after Hexham fight in 1464. He was himself 
destined to be beheaded after Tewkesbury. No doubt 
Exeter was one of those who rode out of Bruges with him, 
probably on a sorry horse. 

Philippe de Commines, at that time a servant of the 
Duke, observes in his memoirs that in the Wars of the Roses, 
' three score or four score persons of the blood royal were 
cruelly slain. Those that survived were fugitives, and 
lived in the Duke of Burgundy's court ; all of them young 
gentlemen whose fathers had been slain in England, whom 
the Duke of Burgundy had generously maintained before 
this marriage as his relations of the House of Lancaster. 
Some of them were reduced to such extremity of want and 
poverty, before the Duke of Burgundy received them, that 
no common beggar could have been poorer. I saw one 
of them, who was Duke of Exeter, but he concealed his name, 
following the Duke of Burgundy's train, bare-foot and bare- 
legged, begging his bread from door to door. This person 
was the next ' [in succession, he means, to the crown 
after Prince Edward of Wales] ' of the House of Lan- 
caster ; he had married King Edward's sister, and, being 
afterwards known, had a small pension allowed him for his 
subsistence. There were also some of the family of the 

^ A description of these marriage festivities is given in immense detail by 
Olivier de la Marche. 


Somersets, and several others, all of them slam since in 
the wars.' 

De Commines adds, with much justice : ' The fathers 
and relations of these persons had plundered and destroyed 
the greater part of France, and possessed it for many 
years, and afterwards they turned their swords upon them- 
selves, and killed one another ; those who were remaining 
in England, and their children, have died, as you see ; and 
yet there are those who affirm that God does not punish 
men as He did in the days of the children of Israel, but 
suffers the wickedness both of princes and people to remain 

Certainly, if this be so, the Hollands had no right to 
complain of retributive justice ; they had taken their full 
share in the ravaging of France. Yet one can feel for the 
victims of even just retribution, when the sins of the fathers 
are visited upon the children ; and it is rather a touching 
picture, this authentic vision of the chief of the once haughty 
House of Holland, begging bare-foot for his bread, too 
proud to reveal his name. The contrast was the more 
poignant in that, in these last years of Duke Philip le Bon, 
the Court of Burgundy was by far the most wealthy and 
splendid and luxurious in Christendom, and that the Duke 
of Exeter was second cousin to the Count de Charolais, 
Duke Philip's son and heir,^ who succeeded in 1467. It 
seems strange that Henry Holland, who had landed in 
Flanders with Queen Margaret in 1463, should have been 
allowed by the richest and most magnificent and bountiful 
of dukes to fall into such complete distress and oblivion, 
and when rediscovered should only have received a small 
pension. But unsuccessful relatives had best not put their 
trust in Princes. 

^ Brantome says : ' Je crois qu'il ne fut jamais quatre plus grand dues, les 
uns apres les autres, comme furent ces quatre dues de Bourgogne.' 


For weary years the Duke of Exeter lived in Flemish 
cities, consuming his heart in poverty and despair, and then 
for a brief space, Fortune turned her wheel. In 1470 his 
' king-making ' and vain-glorious cousin, Richard Nevill, 
Earl of Warwick, who thought himself treated with vile 
ingratitude by Edward IV, and was especially indignant 
because that popular King preferred to take counsel of 
' low born men ' rather than of great lords, quarrelled 
^vith his Yorkist allies and, after various manceuvrings, 
retired to France. He was well received by Louis XI, who, 
since the Burgundian-Yorkist marriage alliance, had been 
hoping to obtain through a Lancastrian restoration a Govern- 
ment in England more favourable to himself. By the 
advice of that astute monarch, Warwick gave his daughter, 
Anne Nevill, in marriage to Edward, son of Henry VI, the 
exiled Prince of Wales. Another of Warwick's daughters had 
already been married to George Duke of Clarence, younger 
brother of Edward IV, a prince of feeble character, who on 
this occasion followed for awhile his father-in-law against 
his royal brother. Warwick now was ready to attempt 
a restoration of the House of Lancaster. Calais was again 
in his possession, and de Commines saw its old fishy and 
narrow streets full of men wearing the Nevill badge of the 
bear and ragged staff. Warwick borrowed ships from 
Louis XI, landed with a small force at Dartmouth on Sep- 
tember 13, 1470, and at first was completely successful. 
Edward IV, gallant and energetic in war, was indolent 
and improvident in peace. ' King Edward,' says Philippe 
de Commines, who knew him well, ' was a very young prince, 
and one of the handsomest men of his age at the time he 
had overcome all his difficulties ; so he gave himself up 
wholly to pleasures and took no delight in anything but 
ladies, dancing, and festivities, and the chase, and in this 
voluptuous course of life, if I mistake not, he spent almost 


sixteen years till the quarrel happened between him and 
the Earl of Warwick.' ^ Warwick's raid took Edward 
by surprise. He had suddenly to quit his hunting and 
love-making, and escape from the east coast to Holland. 
Warwick entered London, and the imbecile Henry was 
brought out of the Tower of London and proclaimed King 
once more. At the beginning of this brief Restoration, 
the Duke of Exeter was engaged on a diplomatic mission. 
De Commines says ; 

' That very day on which the Duke of Burgundy received 
the news of King Edward being in Holland, I was come 
from Calais and found him (the Duke) at Boulogne, having 
heard nothing of that nor of King Edward's defeat. The 
first news the Duke of Burgundy heard was that he was 
killed, and he was not at all concerned about it, for his 
affection was greater for the House of Lancaster than for 
that of York, and there were at that very time in his court 
the Dukes of Exeter and Somerset, and several others of 
King Henry's party, so that he thought by their means 
to be easily reconciled to that family, but he dreaded greatly 
the Earl of Warwick. Besides, he knew not after what 
manner to carry himself to King Edward, whose sister he 
had married, and, moreover, they were brethren of the same 
Orders, for the King wore the Golden Fleece and the Duke 
the Garter.' 

It was an awkward situation for the Duke of Bur- 
gundy. For trade and other reasons, it was essential 
to be on good terms with the English Government, and 
for the moment it was not clear which dynasty would 

' ' After his final success over Warwick,' says de Commines, Edward IV ' fell 
again to his pleasures, and indvilged himself in them more recklessly than ever. 
From this time he feared nobody, but grew very fat,' &c. After the treaty of 
Pecquigny in 1475, Edward lived happily on 50,000 gold crowns paid to him by 
Louis XI, annually, at the cost of the unhappy French tax-payer, as an insurance 
against new English invasions. 


prevail. It was all the more important to make no error, 
because the Duke was being hard pressed in war by the 

King Edward arrived at the Duke's court at St. Pol 
in January 1471, and urged him to grant assistance for the 
recapture of England. On the other hand, says de Commines, 
' the Dukes of Exeter and Somerset violently opposed it, 
and used all their artifices to keep him firm to King Henry's 
interest. The Duke was in suspense, and knew not which 
side to favour ; he was fearful of disobliging either, because 
he was engaged in a desperate war at home ; but at length 
he struck in with the Duke of Somerset and the rest of their 
party, upon certain promises which they made him, against 
the Earl of Warwick, their ancient enemy.^ King Edward 
was present at the place and was much dissatisfied to see 
how unsucessfully his affairs bent ; yet he was given all the 
fair words imaginable, and told that all was dissimulation 
to keep off a war against two kingdoms at once ; for if the 
Duke were once ruined, he would not be in a position to 
assist him afterwards, if he were even so inclined to do so. 
However, finding King Edward bent upon return to England, 
and being unwilling, for many reasons, absolutely to dis- 
please him, the Duke pretended publicly that he would 
give him no assistance, and issued a j^roclamation forbidding 
any of his subjects to accompany him, but privately he 
sent him 50,000 florins, and furnished him with three or 
four great ships, which he ordered to be equipped for him 
at Terveene in Holland, which is a free port where all persons 
are received ; besides which, he hired secretly fourteen 
Esterling ^ ships for him, which were well armed and were 
engaged to transport him into England, and serve him 

1 ' Their ancient enemy,' but present ally. They had to promise to throw 
over Warwick, or keep him down, after success. 

* The German shipowners were known as Esterlings. 


fifteen days afterwards, all which supply was very great 
considering those times.' 

After this artful arrangement, the Duke expressed to de 
Commines the opinion that ' the affairs of England could not 
go amiss for him, since he was sure of friends on both sides.* 
He had shown on this occasion a caution and cunning which 
were worthy of his enemy Louis XI, and did not justify 
his nickname of ' Le Temeraire.' It had, indeed, been a 
very curious position. The Duke of BurgLmdy was the 
husband of Margaret, one sister of Edward IV, and the Duke 
of Exeter was husband of Anne, another sister. Edward 
was thus soliciting aid from one brother-in-law, and was 
violently opposed by the other. 

The Duke of Exeter, always unsuccessful, returned to 
England in time to take part in the crowning disaster of 
Barnet. King Edward left Bruges with his brother Richard 
of Gloucester, Lord Rivers, Lord Hastings, and others, and 
about 1200 men, and on March 2 embarked at Flushing. He 
was held up by adverse winds for a few days, but on March 12 
touched at Cromer in Norfolk. He found Norfolk full of 
enemies, and sailed on to Ravenspur at the mouth of the 
Humber, where, like Bolingbroke in 1399, he landed. He 
marched straight to York, where he arrived on March 16, 
and had a mixed reception. Some were for him and more 
against him. In order to keep quiet these last, he gave out 
that he had returned only in order to claim his hereditary 
duchy of York. Then he marched south by Tadcaster and 
Wakefield, passing old battle-fields, to Doncaster and Notting- 
ham. The Duke of Exeter and Lord Oxford had raised a 
force of 4000 men in the Eastern Counties, and lay across 
the road at Newark. They retired, however, on Edward's 
approach, and so did the Earl of Warwick from Leicester. 
Warwick threw his force into Coventry, a fortified town, and 
refused battle to Edward who arrived before the walls on 


March 30. Edward passed on to Warwick town, and met at 
Daventry his brother Clarence, with 4000 men, who made 
submission to him. 

Clarence — ' false, fleeting, perjured Clarence ' — had, says 
the French chronicler, found himself uncomfortable amongst 
his new Lancastrian friends. During Edward's absence 
abroad an active intrigue to undermine his faith to his father- 
in-law, Warwick, had been kept on foot by his mother 
(Cecily Nevill), and by his sisters, the Duchess of Burgundy, 
and Anne, Duchess of Exeter — the last faithless in every sense 
to her husband. Edward in Flanders, through the Duchess 
of Burgundy and the other two ladies in England, had 
played upon the fears and feelings of his weak brother. 

After this scene of submission, or reconciliation, Edward 
attended Mass — it was Palm Sunday — in the Church of St. 
Anne at Daventry. Here happened a good omen. A sacred 
image of St. Anne was fixed to one of the pillars in a shrine 
covered by folding doors fastened, except when the image 
was exhibited for devotion, by iron clamps. When Edward 
drew near, the doors flew open of themselves and disclosed 
the gracious saint. It was important to have miraculous 
signs in a time when many powerful people were only anxious 
to know beforehand which would be the winning side, so as 
to join it betimes. 

Edward challenged Warwick once more beneath the 
walls of Coventry, and then marched south. He rode with 
his army into London on the Thursday before Easter Sunday, 
April 11, 1471, and was well received by the middle-class 
citizens. According to de Commines, this was due partly 
to the great debts which he owed to the merchants who 
could only hope to get paid through his restoration, and 
partly to the ladies of quality and citizens' wives, who loved 
his good looks and gallantries, and were on his side to a 
woman, and forced their husbands and brothers and cousins 



to be so also. The sympathies of the poorer class were 
probably more with Warwick. 

On entering London, Edward first went to St. Paul's 
Cathedral, and then to Westminster Abbey, where ' he made 
his prayers devoutly to God, to his glorious mother, to St. 
Peter, and to St. Edward.' Then he paid a visit to his wife, 
the Queen, who was already in London. On the Saturday, 
he marched with his army out of London and drove Warwick's 
advance parties in on their main body, who were now a mile 
and a half north of the village of Barnet, near where the road 
to St. Albans branches from the north road to Hatfield. 
Edward then passed through Barnet, and, under cover of 
darkness, established his force on the far side, close to the 
enemy's line.^ Both armies had the new implements of 
cannon, but Warwick had many more than Edward. He had 
them fired at intervals all night, but they did no damage owing 
to a mistake as to Edward's position.^ 

Next morning, that of Easter Sunday, April 14, Edward 
rode through his army just before daybreak encouraging 
his men. Edward, who, like Warwick, posed as a jovial 
democrat, once told Philippe de Commines that when he 
saw that a battle was won, he used to mount his horse and 
shout to his men to spare the common people and kill the 
gentlemen. He did not do so on this occasion, because 
he was angry with the common people for the hearty good 
reception which they had given to Warwick on his last 
landing. Warwick had always been mightily popular, 
partly by reason of his lavish expenditure on eating and 

^ Edward's sister, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, in a letter to her mother-in- 
law, written a week later, says that Edward began the battle with his face to the 
village, and ended it with his back to the other side. But she wrote on not very 
good oral information and, according to Wavrin, it was as in the text. 

* Warkworth's chronicle says : ' Near Barnet, on Holy Saturday, eche of thciu 
loosede gonnes at other all the nj'ght. And fought on Easter day in the mornynge 
unto X of clokke the forenone.' A pretty way in which to spend the Feast of 
Easter ! 


drinking. ' When he came to London,' says Stow, ' he held 
such an house that six oxen were eaten at a breakfast, and 
every tavern was free of his meat ; for he who had any 
acquaintance in that house, he should have as much boiled 
and roast as he might carry on a long dagger.' When 
Edward and Warwick quarrelled it was a rift in the popular 

This was the last fight in which the Holland banner 
was seen in battle. Exeter commanded the Lancastrian right 
wing, mainly consisting of his East Anglian levies ; Oxford 
led on the left wing, and Warwick in the centre. Before 
the battle the lords and gentlemen of both sides dismounted, 
sent to the rear their horses, according to English custom, 
and fought on foot. A thick mist hung over the field 
that morning, raised, it was said, by the incantations of 
Friar Bungay, a skilful magician. Between 5 and 6 a.m., 
Edward advanced through the fog, displaying banners and 
sounding trumpets, his archers shooting as they went forward. 
The fighting was fierce, and on their right the Lancastrians 
had the best of it at first, and some of the fugitive Yorkists 
never stopped till they came to London, spreading news of 
a defeat. But Warwick's right, after this success, ' fell to 
ryfling,' and did not turn to the aid of their centre and left. 
It is said that Exeter's men, in the course of the confused 
fight, shot at the Earl of Oxford's, mistaking in the mist their 
badge of a star for the badge of a sun worn by Edward's 
men, and that Oxford's men suspecting treachery left the 
field. Edward, valiant and bold, was fighting in person in 
the midst of the battle, and killed many with his own royal 
hand. His brothers, Clarence and Richard of Gloucester, 
also fought bravely, and so did Lord Rivers, Lord Hastings, 
and others of the Edwardian set. On the other side, Lord 
Montagu, Warwick's brother, did great feats, until at last he 
was killed. Warwick saw or heard of bis brother's fall, was 


dejected and unmanned, and in the end was himself slain. 
Exeter fought ' manfully,' but was sore wounded in the 
middle of the fight. The battle lasted some four hours, and 
then the Lancastrians were driven off the ground. It was 
one more success for better discipline and training against 
numbers. Edward had no more than 9000 men against about 
30,000 : * Comme il fut sceu de vray non plus n'en avoit,' 
says de Wavrin. This looks as though the Londoners had 
not joined Edward largely. 

King Edward returned to refresh himself at Barnet, 
and then marched in triumph to London. He entered St. 
Paul's as vespers were being sung, and offered up his own 
banner and that of Warwick as a thank-offering. Meanwhile, 
his brother-in-law, Henry Holland, last Duke of Exeter, 
lay sore wounded amid the slain. Wavrin says : ' Aussi 
fut abattu le due d'Excestre, tenant le part de Warewick, 
moult fort navre et tenu pour mort avec les occis qui en grant 
nombre estoient non cognoissant que ce feust il.' 

Presently plunderers despoiled the slain, and stripped 
him naked. But about four o'clock in the afternoon of that 
blood-stained Easter Sunday, there came to the field an old 
retainer of his, named Ruthland, who lived in or near Barnet. 
He searched for his lord's body and when he found it, saw 
that he was not dead, and took him to his own house where 
his wounds were attended to by a surgeon, and, on a later day, 
conveyed him into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey. 

Edward IV, meanwhile, in a proclamation dated April 27, 
1471, proclaimed the leading Lancastrians to be * open and 
notorious traitors and rebels and enemies.' The list names 
Queen Margaret and Edward her son, and * Henry, late Duke 
of Exeter, Edmund Beaufort calling himself duke of Somerset, ' 
the Earls of Oxford and Devonshire, Viscount Beaumont, 
seven knights, two squires, three Clerks, and one Friar. 
A mist hangs over the subsequent fate of Henry Holland, 


Duke of Exeter. According to the chronicler Fabian, 
who was followed by most subsequent historians, his body- 
was found a few months later floating in the sea between 
Calais and Dover and none knew how it came there. 
Sir James Ramsay, in his learned book ' Lancaster and York,' 
vol. ii. p. 370, has, however, shown that Exeter was in the 
Tower of London after his sanctuary and was living until June 
1475.^ Sir James adds that the Duke ' apparently was set 
at liberty to join the expedition ' (to France, in 1475), 
' though his name does not appear on the Muster Rolls, and 
on the expedition he died, drowned at sea on the way to 
Calais, the last male of his aspiring House, and the only 
life lost in the campaign.' 

This last statement rests on the authority of Richard 
Grafton, the Tudor continuator of Hardyng's Chronicle, who 
says that in this expedition to France ' none was slain saving 
only the Duke of Exeter, the which man was in sanctuary 
before, and, commanded to follow the King, was put to 
death by drowning, and cast over a ship by Sir Thomas St. 
Leger, which afterwards married his wife, contrary to the 
promise made.' The ' afterwards ' is in any case incorrect, 
as St. Leger married the Duchess long before 1475. 

Sir James Ramsay, following the line indicated by Grafton, 
adds in a footnote : ' If there was any foul play in the matter, 
suspicion ought to rest not on Edward, but on his sister Anne, 
the Duchess of Exeter, and her second husband Sir Thomas 
St. Leger.' The argument is as follows : Anne, Duchess 
of Exeter, was born in 1439, and she obtained a divorce 
from the Duke on November 12, 1467, and then married 
Sir Thomas St. Leger. The Duke of Exeter's estates were 
confiscated in 1461, after Towton, when his wife was twenty- 

^ On June 21, 1471, a bill of 6?. 8d. was paid to William Sayer, purveyor to the 
Tower of London for food for ' Henry, called Duke of Exeter,' for seven days, from 
May 26, and again Qs. 8d. for the week beginning May 31. — Rymer, vol. xi. p. 71 3i 


two years old, and after that he was in exile. As she was the 
sister of King Edward IV, the Holland estates in Devonshire 
and other south-western counties and elsewhere were re- 
granted to her to hold as a woman sole. An Act of Parlia- 
ment, passed in 1464, enabled that ' such gifts and grants 
as the King shall make to Anne, his sister, wife to Henry, 
Duke of Exeter, shall be to all intents good in law to the only 
use of the said Anne, and that she plead and be impleaded by 
the name of Anne, Duchess of Exeter.' (Tower Records.) 
In August 1467, there was a settlement or re-settlement of 
the Exeter estates. King Edward granted to Anne, his sister, 
sundry castles, manors, &c., in Wales, Cornwall, Devon, 
Somerset, and Wilts, and other counties, to herself for life, 
with remainder to her daughter by the Duke of Exeter, the 
Lady Anne Holland, in general tail, and then, in default of 
that daughter living and having issue, to the Duchess Anne 
in general tail. On November 12, 1467, the Duchess obtained 
a divorce from the Duke and then married Sir Thomas St. 
Leger, by whom she had a daughter also named Anne. 
' But,' says Sir James Ramsay, ' we find it alleged that the 
re-settlement of 1467 was obtained at the instance of Sir 
Thomas St. Leger to enable his daughter to succeed Anne 
Holland and her issue. If this was so, Anne St. Leger must 
have been born before her mother's divorce from the Duke. 
The Duke's liberation would be very inconvenient to the 
St. Legers.' 

According to one old historian. Lady Anne Holland, 
while she was still a child, was contracted about 1465 to 
Thomas Woodville, a brother of Edward IV's queen, and 
this was one of the grievances of the Earl of Warwick, 
who had marked down this high-born heiress for a 
kinsman of his own. This match did not come off, and 
some time after 1467, Anne Holland died unmarried, 
and her mother, the Duchess of Exeter, died in 1476. The 


way now stood open for the advancement of Anne St Leger. 
An Act of Parliament in 1482 recites the facts, and states 
that Anne St. Leger was now intended to be married to 
Thomas, son of the Marquess of Dorset, and the King by 
authority of the Act confirmed to Anne the estates comprised 
in the settlement of 1467.^ 

One can well understand that, in those unscrupulous 
days, when things so stood, Anne Holland, hapless girl, should 
have died in favour of Anne St. Leger ; all the more since she 
was also in the Lancastrian line of succession to the throne. 
The Duke of Exeter's misfortune in having a wife of the 
faithless and wicked House of York bore natural fruits. But 
Grafton's words, ' contrary to the promise made,' indicate 
that, according to tradition, on which he was writing, St. Leger's 
murder of Exeter, if he were the murderer, was instigated 
by higher authorities. Edward IV, or his courtiers, or 
perhaps the unscrupulous Duke of Gloucester, can hardly 
be acquitted of Exeter's death, because they had as much 
interest in it as the St. Legers, or even more. There is no 
good proof that Exeter was in the expedition of 1475, and 
it rather is probable that he was removed from the Tower 
to that convenient prison at Calais and drowned in the sea, 
or otherwise murdered and thrown into the sea. In some 
violent way, in any case, the last man of legitimate birth 
of this branch of the Hollands came to his end at the age of 
forty-five. It is singular that the first Holland Duke of 
Exeter should have lost his life in trying to dethrone his 
royal brother-in-law of the House of Lancaster, and that the 
third Duke should have lost his in the result of an attempt 
to dethrone his royal brother-in-law of the House of York. 

Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, is rather a dim figure in 
history, and his continuous failures make one feel that his was 

^ Anne St. Leger was eventually married to Sir George Manners, Lord de Ros, 
and from whom descend the present Lords de Ros and Dukes of Rutland. 


not a formidable personality. He was like the Jacobite 
lords of a later time — a loyal and brave adherent of a doomed 
and unpopular cause. There is something pale and dreamlike 
about the whole record of this Holland, especially about his 
last years. He does not stand out in bold relief like his 
grandfather. Perhaps it is for want of an historian like 
Froissart. There were certainly excellent dynastic reasons 
and motives of high policy for his disappearance from the 
scene. After that Edward, Prince of Wales, had been killed 
by his Yorkist cousins, in 1471, at the battle of Tewkesbury, 
Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, stood first in succession to 
the Crown on the Lancastrian side. His claim was superior 
to that which Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, successfully 
asserted against Richard III on Bosworth Field. Holland 
descended from Elizabeth, daughter of John, Duke of Lan- 
caster, by a marriage previous to that which the Duke con- 
tracted with Katherine Swynford, whence came the Beauforts, 
and from them, through Margaret of Richmond, Henry VII. 
Also the first Beauforts were born of a doubly illegitimate 
union, though they were afterwards legitimated. The Duke of 
Exeter, if he had lain concealed and had not gone, or been 
taken to, Westminster Abbey, might easily have escaped, as 
he did after Towton Field, and again after the campaign in 
Northumberland. He might have lived beyond the sea 
until 1485, when he would have been fifty-five years old, 
the year when the wicked House of York, having almost 
devoured itself like a sinful clan in a Greek tragedy, fell 
amidst the applause of a weary and indignant nation. Had 
this been his fortune, to him, and not to Henry Tudor, 
would most naturally have fallen the duty of asserting 
in arms the Lancaster claim. In that event there might 
have been, for better or worse, a Royal House of Holland 
instead of a House of Tudor. This very claim made almost 
certain his murder, for it was deadly to possess a claim 


even more remote than that of Henry Holland. Henry VII 
himself told de Commines that ever since he had been five 
years old till Bosworth Field, he had been either hiding or 
in exile. 

The three allied Houses of Lancaster, Beaufort, and 
Holland fell together in the storm of the Roses. The existing 
Dukes of Beaufort descend from an illegitimate son of Henry 
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was beheaded after Hexham 
fight. Thus the modern Beauforts have for one of their 
ancestresses that important lady, INIargaret Holland, daughter 
of the second Earl of Kent, who was also an ancestress of 
the Tudors and Stewarts. 

A Lancashire historian,^ reflecting on the poor body 
found floating off Dover, remarks that ' such was the 
melancholy end of this branch of the great feudal House of 
Holland, the most powerful of subjects and the most un- 
fortunate of men.' The Hollands, indeed, ran a brilliant 
and disastrous course, but they never really were a ' great 
feudal house,' in the sense, at least, of the Fitz- Alans, 
Percys, Nevills, Staffords, Mortimers, Beauchamps, Monta- 
cutes, Mowbrays, or Bohuns. They were the descendants 
of Thurstan de Holland, who, only two hundred years 
before the Battle of Barnet, w^as a Lancashire squire of no 
high descent or great possessions, and throughout their 
history they were probably in the view of great Norman- 
descended lords merely Saxon-derived adventurers, or soldiers 
of fortune, who had married much above themselves, and 
whose importance was adventitious rather than intrinsic' ^ 

Beltz, in his stately and admirable ' INIemorials of the 
Order of the Garter,' expresses mild surprise that seven 
Hollands in three generations should have been Knights 

^ J. Croston, in his History of SamUsbury Hall, once a Holland property. 

^ The Saxon name of Thurstan — rather common in old Lancashire — as well as 
their original social standing, makes it almost certain that the Hollands were of 
English and not of Norman descent. 


of that noble Society, for, says he very coldly, they ' derived 
no particular lustre from ancestry,' and came of ' a gentle 
but inconsiderable stock.' But, then, Mr. Beltz's ideals 
as to the origin of species were very lofty. The seven 
Hollands, K.G's, with their numbers in the list, were : 

Sir Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent, 14th Knight. 
Sir Otho Holland, 23rd Knight. 

Sir Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent, 59th Knight. 
Sir John Holland, 1st Earl of Huntingdon and Duke 

of Exeter, 69th Knight. 
Thomas Holland, 3rd Earl of Kent and Duke of Surrey,. 

89th Knight. 
Edmund Holland, 4th Earl of Kent, 107th Knight. 
John Holland, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon and Duke of 

Exeter, 126th Knight. 

The third Duke of Exeter never was a K.G., owing 
to his usual ill-luck. Probably there was no vacancy, and 
then the Civil War intervened. 

The following tables may be useful illustrations of the 
alliances of the Hollands in this distinguished period of 
their history. Names not useful for the purpose are 



Edward I. 

Edward II = Isabella of France 

Edward in = Philippa of Hainault. 

Edmund, = Margaret, d. of 
Earl o f I Lord Wake of 
Elent. Lydel. 

Edward, = Joan, widow of 

John. = 

= Blanche, d. of 

Joan Plantagenet, = 

= Sir Thomas 

Prince of 

Sir Thotoas 

Duke of 

Henry, Duke 

the Fair Maid of 



Holland, Earl 


of Lancaster, 


Earl of 

of Kent. 


and grandson 
of Henry III. 


Bichard n. 


eth = 

y IV. Elizab 

= John Holland, 

Thomas Holland 

Earl of Hunt- 

2nd Earl of Kent 

1 Henry V. 

ingdon, &c., 
and Duke of 

eldest son. 

Henrv VI. 


3rd and 4th 

Earls of Kent. 

2nd and 3rd Dukes of Exeter. 

1 Margaret Holland, d. of 2nd Earl of Kent, married {s.p.) Duke of Clarence, brother of Henry V, as her 
Sad husband. 



Edward III = Philippa of Hainault. 

Lionel, Duke of Clarence 

Philippa of Clarence : 

Edmund Mortimer (I), 
Earl of March; 6.1351, 
d. 1381. 

Edmund, Duke of York = IsabeUa = 2ndly, 1393, Joan, 
Castile. d. of Thomas Hol- 
land, 2nd Earl of 

Edward, Duke 
of York, killed 
at Agincourt, 

Richard, Earl 
of Cambridge 
{see Mow) ; be- 
headed 1415. 

Roger Mortimer, = A 1 i a n o r a, d. of 
2nd Earl of March ; I Thomas Holland, 
6. 1374, d. 1398. 2nd Earl of Kent. 

Edmund Mortimer (H), = 
3rd Earl of March ; 6. 1398, 
d. 1425 s.p. 

Anne, d. of 
Earl of 

2ndly, John Holland, 
2nd Duke of Exeter. 

Anne Mortimer = Richard, Earl of 

I Cambridge, 2nd 

son of Edmund, 

Duke of York; 

beheaded 1415. 

Henry Holland, = Anne, d. of Duke 
3rd Duke of I of York, and sister 
Exeter; d. 1475. of Edward IV. 

Anne Holland ; d. unmarried. 

Richard, Duke of York ; = Cecily Nevill, 
killed at Wakefield, 1460. | d. of Earl of 


Edward IV. Richard m. 

Elizabeth = Henry Vn. 


John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = (3rd wife) Katharine Swynford ; h. 1350, d. 1396. 

John Beaufort, = Margaret, d. of 

Earl of Somerset ; 
«. 1373, d. 1410. 

Thomas Hol- 
land, 2nd Earl 
of Kent. 

Henry Beaufort ; 
&. 1375, d. 1447. 
Cardinal and Chan- 

Thomas Beaufort, = Margaret, 
Duke of Exeter ; 6. d. of Sir 
1377, d. 1427. No Thomas 
issue. Nevill. 

Joan Beaufort. ■= Ralph, Lord 
Nevill and 
Earl of 

Henry Beaufort, 
Earl of Somerset; 

John Beaufort, 
Duke of Somer- 
set; 6. 1403, d. 

Maiigaret Beaufort = Edmund Tudor, 
I Earl of Rich- 

Henry VII. 

House of Tudor. 

Edmund Beaufort, 
2nd Duke of Somer- 
set; 6. 1405, killed 
at St. Albans 1455. 

Joan Beaufort = James I. of 
I Scotland. 


Nevill = 

House of Stewart. 

Duke of 

Hem-y Beaufort, 
3rd Duke of Somer- 
set ; beheaded 1464 
after Hexham. 

Edmund Beaufort, 
4th Duke of Somer- 
set ; murdered after 
Tewkesbury 1471. 

Edward IV. Richard lU. 
Elizabeth = Henry Vn. 
House of Tudor. 


(1) Margaret, d. of Hugh, Earl 
of Stafford ; d. 1370. 

Ralph Nevill, = (2) Joan Beaufort, d. of John of 
^ ■ Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, 

and widow of Robert, Lord 
Ferrers ; d. 1440. 

or. Earl of 
land 1397 ; d. 

John Nevill ; = Elizabeth, d. of 

d. vitd patris 

Thomas Holland, 
2nd Earl of 
Kent ; d. 1423. 

Richard Nevill, 
cr. Earl of Salis- 
bury 1442. Be- 
headed after 
Battle of Wake- 
field 1460. 

: Alice, d. of Thomas 
de Montacute, Earl 
of SaUsbury, and 
his wife, Eleanor 
Holland, d. of 
Thomas Holland, 
2ud Earl of Kent. 

Cecily = Richard Duke of 
1 York. 

Edward IV, Richard III, 
Duke of Clarence. Anne = 
Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of 


Richard Nevill, = Anne, d. of 

Earl of Warwick 
and Salisbury (the 
King Maker). 
Slain at Barnet 

Earl of 

Isabel = Duke of Clarence, 
brother of Ed- 
ward IV. 

: (1) Edward, son of 
Henry VI and Prince 
of Wales ; (2) Richard, 
Duke of Gloucester, 
Richard III. 

Ralph Nevill, = Elizabeth, d. of 

2nd Earl of 
d. 1484. 

Henry, Lord 
Percy (H o t- 
s p u r), and 
widow of John, 
Lord Clifford. 

Sir John Nevill, = Anne, d. of John 
2Dd son ; slain at Holland^ 2nd 

Towton 1461. 

John, Lord Nevill; 
d. mvA patris s.p. 

: Anne, d. of John 
Holland, 2nd 
Duke of Exeter. 

Duke of Exeter, 
and widow of 
John, Lord Nevill 

Ralph Nevill, = Matilda, d. of 

Sir Roger 

3rd Earl of 
We s tmorland 
d. 1523. 

Earls of Westmorland down 
to Charles, who was attainted 
and lost his title in 1570 for his 
share in Catholic rising ; d. 1584, 
leaving only daughters. 



The solemn rites, the awful forms. 
Founder amid fanatic storms ; 
The priests are from their altars thrust. 
The temples levelled with the dust. 


While the Hollands who went south led perilous and stormy 
lives, and were at last killed out, other branches from the 
old Upholland stem remained in Lancashire, and were 
mainly distinguished by the tenacity with which they 
adhered through centuries to various patrimonial estates. 
The earliest of these branches was that of the Hollands of 

The first Robert de Holland, owner of Upholland, who 
lived in the reign of Henry III, and married Cecily, daughter 
of Alan de Columbers, had by her three sons. From one 
of these, Adam, came the Hollands of Euxton ; from another, 
Richard, descended the Hollands of Sutton ; and from the 
eldest of the three, Thurstan, came the Barons Holland, 
the Earls of Kent and Huntingdon, and the Hollands of 
Denton, Clifton, &c. 

Richard de Holland married some lady not known, 
and had for a son Robert de Holland, who married Agnes 
de Molyneux. This Robert acquired from John de Sutton, 
in the reign of Edward I, the manor and estate of Sutton 
in south-west Lancashire, which remained in his posterity 
until the reign of Queen Anne, and part of it still longer. 



Richard de Holland = d. of 

(younger son of 
Robert de Holland 
of UphoUand). 

Robert de Holland, = Agnes de Molyneux. 
living 1331. I 

William Holland, = Godith, d. of 
d. before 1356. I 

John Holland, = Ellen, d. of 
living in 1390. 

John Holland, = d. of 
d. 1402. I 

Richard Holland, = Elizabeth Eltonhead. 
2 years old in 1402. I 

Henry Holland, = Jane Ecclestone. Hugh Four 

living in 1476. I Holland. daughters. 

Richard Holland, = and a daughter. 

temp. Henry VIII. I 

William Holland, = Catharine Two other sons, Four 

living 1567. I Leigh. Richard and Ralph. daughters. 

1 ~ \ 1 

Alexander Holland, = Ann, d. of John Throe other sons. Nine 

d. 1588 

Bold of North Henry, Thomas, daughters. 

Meals. and Peter. 

I I 

Richard Holland, = Anne Henry Holland, S.J. 

b. 1575, alive 1611. I 

William Holland = Margaret Mileson. Thomas Holland, S.J. ; 

I executed 1642. 

Richard Holland, = Anne Alexander Henry Three 

d. 1649. I Ewen. Holland, S.J. Holland. daughters. 

Edward Holland, = Richard. Anne. 
b. 1640, d. 1717. I 

Thomas Holland Richard Holland, S.J. 

(alive 1717). 


The pedigree of the Hollands of Sutton in the table herewith 
is based upon the part pedigrees given in Flower's heraldic 
visitation of Lancashire in 1567 and Dugdale's visitation 
in 1664, and upon records earlier than either quoted in the 
Chetham Society Papers and the ' Victorian History of 
Lancashire ' and other books.^ Nothing is known of their 
history until the sixteenth century, though they certainly 
handed down the manor with unbroken regularity. In that 
century and the next they do modestly appear on the page of 

While the Hollands of Denton, as will be seen, were 
after the Elizabethan settlement strong Protestants, and even 
Puritans, their distant kinsmen, those of Sutton, adhered 
staunchly to Rome. There was, however, one striking 
exception : Roger Holland, burnt at Smithfield in 1558, 
appears to have been of this family. An account of him is 
given in Foxe's ' Acts and Monuments,' ^ commonly called 
the Book of Martyrs. This Roger came up from Lancashire, 
and, as was then common enough with younger sons of lesser, 
but good families, became a London apprentice, with one 
Master Kempton, at the Black Boy in Watling Street, a 
merchant tailor. He served his apprenticeship, says Foxe, 

^ A note in the Chetham Society publication of Lancashire Inquisitions says : 
* The Holands of Clifton entered at the Visitation of 1567, as did also the Holands 
of Sutton whom the Heralds seem to have treated as an offshoot from Clifton, 
but this is manifestly erroneous, as Robert de Holand, son of Richard (younger 
brother of Thurstan, the grandfather of Sir Robert who was raised to the peerage), 
acquired in the reign of Edward I from John de Sutton, that estate which was 
inherited by his posterity-' 

2 There is no direct evidence that Roger Holland belonged to the Hollands of 
Sutton Hall, but there is a Lancashire tradition to this effect. The record of his 
trial shows that he belonged to a well-connected and obstinately Catholic family 
in Lancashire, and the fact that one of his kinsmen present at the trial was Mr. 
Ecclestone, makes it seem almost certain that Roger belonged to the Sutton family, 
since we know that Henry Holland, owner of Sutton, who was living in 1476, 
married Jane Ecclestone. Roger Holland may have been his nephew through 
his younger brother, Hugh. The learned and careful authors of the Victorian 
History of Lancashire accept the relationship. 


' with much trouble to his master in breaking him from his 
Hcentious ways which he had before been trained and brought 
up in, giving himself to riot, dancing, fencing, gaming, 
banqueting and wanton company, and besides all this, being 
a stubborn and obstinate papist.' i One day he lost at dice 
£30 belonging to his master, and was about to fly to 
Flanders or France, says Foxe," but first disclosed his 
disaster to ' a servant in the house, an ancient and discreet 
maid, whose name was Elizabeth, which professed the 
gospel, with a life agreeing to the same, and at all times 
rebuked the wilful and obstinate papistry, as also the 
licentious living of the said Roger.' Elizabeth luckily 
happened to have in hand £30 of her own, the fruit of a recent 
legacy. This she gave to Roger Holland on condition that he 
would reform his life, forswear wild company, never gamble 
again, attend every day the lecture in All Hallows and, on 
Sunday, the sermon in St. Paul's (it was in the reign of 
Edward VI), cast away ' all books of papistry and vain 
ballads,' get a Testament and prayer-book, read the Scripture 
and pray. Roger obeyed these conditions and, in half a 
year, became ' an earnest professor of the truth, and detested 
all papistry and evil company.' He went down to Lancashire 
and tried in vain to persuade his father and kinsmen to 
abandon the ways of their benighted ancestors. His father, 
however, gave him £50, and on his return to London he repaid 
Elizabeth her £30, and said to her : ' Elizabeth, here is thy 
money I borrowed of thee, and for the friendship, goodwill 
and counsel I have received at thy hands, to recompense 
thee I am not able otherwise than to make thee my wife.' 
So in the first year of Queen Mary's reign, Roger Holland 

^ As ever, the revellers supported the Conservative cause, and sour Puritans or 
Radicals complained of this. An oificial report of 1562 at the beginning of Eliza- 
beth's reign, says that ' a great part of the shires of Staiiord and Derby are gener- 
ally illy inclined towards religion and forbear coming to church and participating 
of the Sacrament, using also very broad speeches in alehouses and elsewhere.' 


married the ' ancient and discreet maid.' They had a 
baby, who was baptized in their own house by Master Rose, 
and not in church by a priest. 

In 1558, the last year of Mary's reign, Roger Holland was 
brought up, on the charge of heresy, before Bishop Chedsey, 
and others. Dr. Chedsey, ' with many fair and crafty 
persuasions,' tried to ' attune him unto their Babylonical 
Church,' but Roger stoutly held his own, using strong terms 
of abuse against that Church. Afterwards, he was examined 
before Bishop Bonner, who was evidently anxious to save his 
life if possible, within the law : the more so, because Roger 
belonged to a higher class family. The Bishop said that he 
had conceived, from private talk with him, that Roger was 
a man of good sense, though somewhat over-hasty, and 
added : 'See, Roger, I have a good opinion of you that you 
will not, like these lewd fellows, cast yourself headlong from 
the Church of your parents, and your friends here, that are 
very good Catholics, as is reported to me.' These friends 
in the Court were Lord Strange, ancestor of the Earl of 
Derby, Sir Thomas Jarrett, Mr. Ecclestone, a cousin of the 
Sutton Hollands, and ' divers others of worship, both of 
Cheshire and Lancashire, that were Roger Holland's kins- 
men and friends.' Bishop Bonner spoke so kindly that these 
gentlemen gave him ' thanks for his good will and pains that 
he had taken on his [Roger's] and their behalf.' But Roger 
could not be moved, and in reply to the test question, which 
at last the Bishop reluctantly put, said : ' As for the Mass, 
transubstantiation, and the worshipping of the Sacrament, 
they are mere impiety and horrible idolatry.' 

He was then condemned to be burned in Smithfield, with 
two others, under the old statute de haeretico comburendo. 
At the last, ' embracing the stake,' Roger said, according to 
the Foxe narration : ' Lord, I most humbly thank Thy 
Majesty that Thou hast called me from the state of death 


unto the light of Thy heavenly word, and now into the fellow- 
ship of Thy saints, that I may sing and say " Holy, holy, holy. 
Lord God of Hosts." Lord, into thy hands I commit my 
spirit. Lord, bless these Thy people, and save them from 
idolatry.' ' And so he ended his life, looking up into 
Heaven, praying and praising God, Math the rest of his 
fellow saints.' 

So Roger Holland died, valiantly, like an honest English- 
man, refusing to save his life by going back upon himself and 
saying that he accepted a doctrine which he did not in fact 
accept. If he had escaped burning for a few months, he 
would have escaped it for ever. His burning, and that of 
two others who suffered at the same time, was the last that 
ever took place in Smithfield, for Queen Mary died on 
November 17 in this same year. Had she only died in 
the spring instead of the autumn, Roger Holland, so far 
from being burned, would have seen his views as to the Mass 
substantially adopted by the Elizabethan Government, and 
embodied in milder words in the restored Articles of the 
Church of England.^ He would have beheld — perhaps not 
with complete satisfaction — a renovated prelacy, and, after 
a time, as a prosperous merchant tailor and alderman, 
might have seen Catholic priests hung, drawn, and quartered 
for celebrating what were, in his opinion, idolatrous rites. 

The other Hollands of Sutton did not follow this example. 
They continued to be Catholics, and suffered accordingly in 
person and estate. Alexander Holland, who then owned 
Sutton Hall, was noted as a ' suspected person ' in 1584. 
A year earlier, in 1583, Robert Holland, said to belong to 
this family, and very likely a brother of Alexander, had been 
convicted at the Manchester Quarter Sessions of the statu- 
tory crime of twelve months' non-attendance at his parish 

1 Articles 28-31. Many modern Anglicans, it is true, now accept the full 
Catholic doctrine on this subject. Under the Test Act everyone for 150 years 
who took a seat in either House of Parliament, including the bishops, denied 
expressly the doctrine of ' Transubstantiation.' 


church, was fined £240 (£20 for each month), and committed, 
together with ' a great number of Lancashire gentlemen and 
ladies,' to the prison for recusants at Salford. 

He was unlucky in living in the Manchester district, 
where there was a majority of Puritan magistrates. In the 
same year, according to an official report, no convictions 
of recusants could be obtained at the Quarter Sessions held 
at Lancaster, Preston, and Wigan, though there were many 
charges brought, ' and there were many notorious recusants 
in every of the said divisions.' Probably in these three 
divisions most of the squires who met at sessions were them- 
selves more or less concealed Catholics, and others had been 
left, by repeated changes, in a state of religious indifference, 
and were certainly not disposed to worry, and fine, and 
send to prison, neighbours whom they met out hunting. 

The apathy of the magistrates was not the only difficulty 
which the Government had to encounter in Lancashire. 
As late as 1602 the Bishop of London wrote to the Secretary 
Cecil. ' Also they in Lancashire and in those parts stand 
not in fear by reason of the great multitude there is of them. 
Likewise I have heard it reported publicly among them that 
they of that county have beaten divers pursuivants extremely 
and made them vow and swear that they would never meddle 
with any recusants more, and one pursuivant in particular 
was forced to eat his writ.' This last feat was done by a 
Lancashire Catholic gentleman, called Geoffrey Poole, who 
captured a pursuivant bearing a writ for his own arrest, 
and said : ' Look here, fellow ! I give thee thy choice, either 
eat up this writ presently, or else eat my sword, for one 
of the two thou shalt do before we depart hence.' 

In 1591 the Government took vigorous steps to remedy 
want of zeal among the Lancashire magistrates. A commis- 
sion was issued for the apprehension of seminary priests and 
Jesuits and for ' reducing recusants to conformity,' and on 
one night fifty Lancashire Catholic gentlemen were seized and 


committed to prison on the vague charge of harbouring 
priests and not attending church. On October 22, an order 
from the Lords of the Council was issued to ' oure verie, 
loving friends,' Sir John Byron, High Sheriff of Lancaster, 
Sir Edward Fytton, Richard Asheton, Richard Brereton, 
and Richard Holland of Denton, directing that sessions of the 
peace should be holden before November 22 following, at 
which every justice of the peace should be required to take 
the oath of supremacy, and ordering the removal from the 
commission of the peace of every justice not repairing to 
church, or whose wife, or son and heir, if he lived in the 
county, should refuse to go, or not usually go, to church. 
Thus the magistracy was tuned to the right key. 

From Salford prison Robert Holland was taken to 
London, and imprisoned in the Marshalsea. A report made 
in 1586, by Nicolas Berden, Walsingham's prison spy, is 
extant, in which the prisoners in the Marshalsea are classified 
in several groups with such notes as ' mete to be hung,' 
or ' should be sent to Wisbech.' Robert Holland and several 
other lay gentlemen are bracketed with a note : ' These nether 
welthy nor wyse, but all very arrant.' 

After much suffering, Robert Holland died, like so many 
others, in that insanitary prison, in June 1586, aged forty- 
eight, and is therefore named in the catalogue of ' confessors 
of the faith.' 

Edmund Campion, S.J., whose brief English mission lay 
chiefly in Lancashire, wrote in a letter, dated October 
1581 : 

' The heat of the persecution now raging against the 
Catholics, throughout the whole realm, is now fiery — such as 
has never been heard of since the conversion of England. 
Gentle and simple, men and women, are being everywhere 
haled to prison ; even children are being put in irons. They 
are despoiled of their goods, shut out of the light of day. 


and publicly held up to the contempt of the people in pro- 
clamations, sermons, and conferences, as traitors and rebels.' 
And further he writes : ' They [the Government] have filled 
all the old prisons with Catholics, and now make new, and 
in fine, plainly affirm that it were better so to make a few 
traitors away than that so many souls should be lost. Of 
their martyrs they brag no more, for it is come to pass 
that, for a few apostates and coblers of theirs burnt, we have 
bishops, lords, knights, and the old nobility, patterns of 
learning, piety, and prudence, the flower of the youth, noble 
matrons, and of the inferior sort innumerable, either martyred 
at once, or by consuming punishment dying daily. At the 
very writing hereof, the persecution rages most cruelly. The 
house where I am is sad ; no other talk but of death, 
flight, spoil of their friends ; nevertheless, they proceed 
with courage.' 

This style may appear to some moderns to have too 
aristocratic a flavour, because of its reference to coblers. 
However, and this is one defence of families like the Hollands 
of Sutton for not obeying the laws, there can be no doubt 
that the English Reformation, viewed over its whole course, 
was, like most revolutions, the work of an energetic and 
capable and keenly interested minority, operating, through 
the medium of an undecided public opinion, against an 
established s^^stem which was, indeed, corrupted by many 
abuses, and weakened by long prosperity, security, monopoly, 
and wealth. 

The first break with Rome was the work of Henry VIII 
and one or two advisers. Parliament and the Southern Con- 
vocation, though not at first the Northern, passed whatever 
their formidable monarch required, and the heads of a few 
leading opponents — like Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More — 
were taken off ; and three saintly Carthusian Priors, and 
afterwards some great abbots, were hung, to strike intimida- 


tion. In Edward VI's reign the Service and Prayer-book, 
which gave so lasting and strong a stamp to the Church of 
England, was drafted by a Royal Commission of selected 
bishops and divines — virtually by Cranmer ; it was formally 
at most submitted to Convocation, and was made law by Act 
of Parliament. Bishop Burnet, in his right Protestant and 
right honest history of the English Reformation, says that, 
in Edward's reign, the two Archbishops, Cranmer and 
Holgate, adopted this course because ' the greater part of the 
bishops being biassed by base ends, &c., did oppose them, 
and they were thereby forced to order matters so that they 
were prepared by some selected bishops and divines, and 
afterwards enacted by King and Parliament.' 

Even poor and remote Lancashire squires, like the 
Hollands of Sutton, could hardly be expected to revere 
Tudor parliaments. In twenty-five years, from 1534 to 1559, 
Parliament had passed the measures by which Henry VIII 
broke England off from Rome : the later reactionary 
Six Articles of Doctrine by the same monarch ; the Act of 
Edward VI establishing a book of common prayer in direct 
opposition to those Articles ; the repeal under Mary in 1554 
of Henry's Acts against Rome and complete restoration of 
Catholicism, and, finally, the Elizabethan legislation renew- 
ing the breach with Rome, and re-settling religion on the 
Edwardian lines, very slightly modified. 

The English separation from the visible, organic, and 
international society which centres at Rome, whatever may 
seem to different minds its merits and results, was, in fact — 
both under Henry VIII and under Elizabeth — the achieve- 
ment not of the Church, nor of the nation, but of a strong, 
hard, and determined Government, pursuing a fixed policy by 
cruel methods, and supported by a section of mostly new 
nobles and large squires eager for monastic lands, under 
Henry, and solidly founded upon them under Elizabeth, 


by a very powerful and energetic section of the urban and 
commercial middle class, and by a number of real, but bitter 
and narrow-minded, Puritan religionists. 

The separation of England from the main body of the 
Catholic Church in communion with the Apostolic See of 
Rome was, no doubt, as it happened, part of the providential 
design in history, and this thought should soften animosities 
and temper recriminations. But nothing is less true, as a 
matter of history, than to say that the Church of England 
deliberately broke itself off, if by ' Church ' is meant the 
majority of clergy and laity. In Henry's reign the 
mass of the clergy and laity were taken by surprise, as 
indolent conservatives always are. The long previous 
decline of religious fervour had left them without much 
zeal or understanding, and there was general agreement 
in Europe that many practical reforms were needed, such 
as were afterwards advised by the Council of Trent, and 
more or less carried out by the Popes. Clergy and laity, 
intimidated and unable to marshal their ideas, reluctantly 
acquiesced at first in the bewilderingly rapid series of 
actions by the Government. ' Upon the first expulsion 
of the Pope's authority,' says a Protestant writer of two 
generations later, ' and King Henry's undertaking of the 
supremacy, the priests, both regular and secular, did 
openly in their pulpits so far extol the Pope's jurisdictio 
and authority, that they preferred his laws before the King's. 
Whereupon the King sent his mandatory letters to certain 
of his nobility, and others in especial office, thinking 
thereby to restrain their seditions, false doctrines, and 
exorbitancy.' ^ 

After the reigns of Edward VI and Mary it had become 
clear that the real issue at stake was union with or separa- 
tion from the main body of the Catholic Church, and oppo- 

^ Weever, A Discourse on Funeral Monuments, p. 86. 


sition to separation from the Apostolic See took definite 
shape. The final breach at the beginning of Elizabeth's 
reign was opposed by vote in the House of Lords by every 
bishop except Kitchin of Llandaff, who alone of them was 
consequently not deprived of his see.^ It is admitted by 
most Protestant historians that the separation thus carried 
against the bishops' vote was more or less distasteful to 
the majority of the clergy, probably to the great majority. 
Some of these, especially in the higher ranks, also refused 
to take the oath, and were deprived. The vast majority of 
the clergy did conform ; but for a time, till the generation 
died out, many of them were but external conformists, and 
adhered at heart to the old religion. These were usually 
called by Catholics of the time ' schismatics ' as distinct 
from the Puritan ' heretics.' 

Elizabeth and her advisers were, perhaps, compelled 
by the circumstances, at home and abroad, in which they found 
themselves to make their compromise between the conflicting 
religious opinions of the commercial and territorial classes. 
But the separation from Rome, and still more, the radical 
change in doctrine and ritual, the overthrow of the old 
Catholic doctrine and cult of the altar, was disliked by the 
conservative county families, and by most of the yeomen 
and farmers, more especially in the region of the Red Rose 
party, the north and M'est of England. There is plenty of 
evidence as to this, apart from the armed risings in the north 
and west. The following passage, for one instance, is quoted by 
Bishop Milner from a %vriter in Elizabeth's reign, one Rishton. 
Speaking of the state of parties at the beginning of that reign, 
Rishton says : ' Item, praeter plurimos ex optimatibus praeci- 
puis, pars major inferioris nobilitatis erat plane Catholica. 

^ The bishops were deprived for refusing to take the oath of supremacy, which 
the Act thus carried against their vote imposed upon all the clergy. Many of the 
bishops had, of course, been appointed in Mary's reign. 


Plebeii quoque qui agriculturam per totum regnum exercebant 
novitatem istam imprimis detestabant.' That is : ' Except 
many of the chief aristocrats, the larger part of the lesser 
nobility was fully Catholic. The lower class also, who were 
engaged in agriculture throughout the kingdom, at first 
detested this novelty.' And the population was then quite 
four-fifths agricultural. It was what one would expect, 
because men of the squire, ffxrmer, and yeoman kind, always 
are conservative and attached to the ways of their fore- 

Bishop Burnet fully admits in his history that the 
changes were disliked by a majority of the clergy and laity, 
but he argues that minorities are usually right, and 
majorities wrong, in their views. The earlier voluminous 
Protestant writer, Strype, makes the same admission in 
many passages, well supported by original documents. 
The Reformation was closely connected with the com- 
mercial development of England. A Catholic writer in 
Elizabeth's reign, quoted by Froude in his ' English Seamen 
of the Sixteenth Century,' said, no doubt with exaggeration, 
that ' the only party that would fight to the death for the 
Queen, the only real friends she had, were the Puritans — 
the Puritans of London, the Puritans of the sea-towns.' 

In course of years the old clergy died out, and were 
gradually replaced by men of the new opinions — at first 
a most queer parsonhood. Meanwhile the error made 
by Pius V in issuing his Bull of excommunication and 
deposition against Elizabeth, the patriotic and anti-Spanish 
motive, so closely linked with the Enghsh Reformation 
(an immensely powerful and in itself meritorious motive), 
the monopoly of education and of the public pulpits, the 
invisibility of the old form of worship, which could only 
be carried on in hunted secrecy and under severest penalties 
involving not only the life of the priest, but also — though this 


was rarely carried out — ^the lives of those who ' harboured ' 
him, and the discomforts, disabilities, and, above all, the 
heavy and steady special taxation inflicted upon ' popish 
recusants,' drove into conformity or indifference most of the 
recalcitrants, and thus in England, as in other European 
lands, the will of Government prevailed. Once more were 
fulfilled the words of the prophet concerning the rulers of this 
world : ' Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea et super vestem meam 
miserunt sortes.' ' Cujus regio ejus religio,'' was, then, the 
maxim adopted, and more or less rigorously enforced, through- 
out Christendom, both in Catholic and Protestant states. 
The Duke of Alva was enforcing it in the Netherlands far 
more cruelly than Elizabeth in England. Out of these 
elements, still confused in the sixteenth century, arose the 
Reformed Church of England, which, in the seventeenth, bore 
a fair and definite aspect, had already fully evolved its 
characteristic theory, and had by this time gained the support 
of the majority of the natural Conservative party, though 
not that of the Radicals, in religion. 

Devout and learned men, educated later than the Eliza- 
bethan separation — such as the ' judicious ' Hooker, Jeremy 
Taylor, Isaac Barrow, George Herbert, Bishop Bull, Bishop 
Pearson, Sir Thomas Browne, and many others, who were 
Catholics by native inclination and temperament — now 
adorned and strengthened the Protestant and Reformed 
Church of England, and, with the practical genius of their 
countrymen, made the best out of what had happened. They 
were the founders of the High Church party. If Henry VIII 
and his successors had not broken off England from com- 
munion with Rome, who can doubt that men of this cha- 
racter, attached to established and traditional institutions, 
would, like Bossuet, have been firm, though temperate, 
adherents to the Roman See ? But now Conservative 
affections, under opposition to the developing religious 


radicalism of the Puritans, and especially under the stimulus 
of the Civil War, gathered round the new form. Thought 
being, as Shakespeare remarks, the ' slave of life,' adapted 
itself to the new ways of its master, and found justification 
of what he had already done. In its inception, however, 
and in itself, the actual Tudor breach with the Inter- 
national Catholic Church, and with the old mould of religion, 
was, it must be repeated, undeniably in the nature of 
revolutionary action carried out by Government, supported 
by a strong and energetic Radical minority, in opposition to 
Conservative traditions and feelings. Anglican Churchmen 
in modern England seem inclined, on the whole, mildly to 
regret that the action of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth, 
and their advisers, went quite so far as it did ; and certainly 
modern Conservatives, at any rate, ought to sympathise with 
the numerous plain, honest, and stubborn country families 
who held to the ways of all their forefathers and declined 
to change their religious allegiance to the central and apostolic 
See of Rome, their doctrines and customs, at the command of 
a violently reforming and by no means high principled secular 
Government. These mostly obscure families stood splendidly 
for religious freedom and for Conservative principle. They 
only had to attend sometimes the parish church, receive 
Communion there, and take an oath or two, and all 
English life was open to them, but they refused the immense 
temptation. They disobeyed statutory law, but they were 
not bound in the Court of Conscience to accept the blended 
results of the action of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell, 
Cranmer, Somerset, Elizabeth, and the worldly-wise Cecils. 
Principibus placuisse viris non ultima laus est. 

This has been rather a digression, but it was necessary to 
make some defence of the recalcitrant Hollands of Sutton, 
who, like many old Conservative families, obedient to the 
traditions and customs of all their fathers and forefathers, 


but disobedient to the new laws of their country, adhered to 
the Church of Rome long after Elizabeth had been gloriously- 
buried at Westminster, and doomed themselves to gradual 
extinction or complete obscurity. 

Richard Holland of Sutton, who was twenty-five years 
old in 1600, and Anne his wife, were in 1597 and 1603 heavily 
fined as recusants — persons, that is, who would not attend 
the parish church. Anne, as a widow, appears on the Recusant 
Roll in 1634. A younger son of theirs, Thomas Holland, 
became a Jesuit priest and a Catholic martyr.^ ' His 
parents,' says de Marsys, in his French narrative, ' had 
always been remarkable for their piety, their constancy, 
and their faith.' Thomas Holland was born at Sutton Hall 
in 1600. He was put to death in the company of two ordinary 
malefactors — robbers — at Tyburn, on December 12, 1642, at 
the beginning of the Civil War, when the usurping power, 
dominant in London, recommenced these cruel punishments 
of men for being Catholic priests in England, for they 
had been suspended during the happy period in which 
Charles I ruled without the assistance of Parliament. 

There are full accounts of this tragedy by co-temporary 
writers. One is the ' Certamen Triplex,' wi'itten in Latin 
by Father Ambrose Corbie, and published at Antwerp in 
1645, of which an English translation was published in 1858. 
It gives the story of Thomas Holland and of two other 
priests of the Society of Jesus who suffered about the same 
time. An account is also given by de Marsys, in his ' Dc la 
Mort Glorieuse,' &c., also published in 1645. On these are 
based the accounts given by Bishop Challoner in his ' Memoirs 
of Missionary Priests,' published in 1742, and by Foley, S.J., 

^ The name of this Thomas is not given in Dugdale's pedigree of the Sutton 
Hollands, printed in the Visitation of 1664. Possibly it was not given by the family, 
for prudential reasons. But he is stated in contemporary accounts to have been 
the Bon of Richard and Anne Holland of Sutton in Lancashire, and a nephew of 
Henry Holland, S.J., and this was no doubt the fact. 


KularseJ and clarified photograph from the original miniature portrait at Lanherne 
Convent in Cornwall 


in his ' Records of the EngHsh Province of the Society 
of Jesus.' 

When still very young, Thomas Holland went to St. 
Omer, where he spent six years in the English College of the 
Society of Jesus, which had been founded there in 1593. 
He was much esteemed there, and was elected Prefect of the 
Sodality of the Blessed Virgin. In August 1621, he was 
sent to the English College of the Society at Valladolid 
to study philosophy. While he was there the Prince of 
Wales, afterwards Charles I, came to Madrid with a view to 
marrying the Infanta Maria. Thomas Holland was chosen, 
for his power of speech, to address the Prince on behalf 
of the young Catholic Englishmen who were then studying 
in Spain. He made a Latin oration, of which the Prince, 
in replying, admired the style and approved the sentiments. 

After three years in Spain, Thomas Holland returned 
to Flanders, was admitted into the Society, and entered 
the novitiate of the English Province at Watten in 1620. 
He then studied theology at the College of Liege — ' the House 
of Divinity of the English Province ' — and was ordained 
priest. After an interval at Ghent, he was appointed Prefect 
of Morals and Confessor to the scholars at St. Omer's. He 
was remarkably successful as a teacher of the Divine life. 
His ' industry in promoting spiritual conversation was 
observed by many, not only abroad, but afterwards in 
England, who remarked that he was absolutely made up 
of spiritual things, and called him a walking library of pious 
books. He was long remembered by the youth of the 
seminary with particular affection.' Some stories about 
his life at St. Omer were given by Thomas Cary, S.J., one 
of his pupils, and then of Liege College, in a letter which 
he wrote on February 4,1643, soon after Holland's martyrdom. 
He says, among other things, that ' he seemed to be all 
inflamed, and his eyes would almost sparkle, as he was 


speaking of Almighty God ; and, in chiding those who were 
immodest, would with such zeal and fervour reiterate 
" Dominus Deus videt nos,^' as did clearly manifest what a 
lively sense and feeling he had of His Divine Majesty. And 
although he would speak sometimes in chiding with that 
voice and gesture which would make a man believe he was 
on fire, yet we did see clearly that he was not angry, but 
spake only out of zeal, for as soon as he had ended his speech, 
he was as present to himself, and as meek and quiet as if 
he had not been in the least moved. . . . He was an exceed- 
ing good ghostly Father, and so beloved of his penitents 
that four or five years after his departure from the seminary 
his name was famous for so singular a talent, and divers 
of his penitents did protest never to have found the like, 
or received that comfort and full satisfaction from any which 
they had from him. He would very often encourage us 
in confession with saying " My soul for yours," and that in 
such an expression as we might see it proceeded from a 
true and noble heart.' 

Thomas Holland took his final vows at Ghent on May 26, 
1634, and in the following year was sent into England, and 
worked there for more than eight years, mostly in London. 
Being obliged generally to keep within doors he lost almost 
all appetite for food and suffered much in health. ' Some- 
times for months together he was unable to venture out of his 
place of concealment, or to walk in a private garden, or to 
inhale the fresh air from an open window, for fear of being 
noticed by his neighbours. Notwithstanding all these 
disadvantages, by a skilful division of the hours, he made 
this exercise of his patience agreeable to himself by a variety 
of prayers and occupations, and useful to the family in which 
he was residing by pious conversation. His charity, more- 
over, urged him, in the dusk of evening or in the grey of the 
dawn, to go forth and console, instruct, and strengthen by 


sacraments, such Catholics as did not venture or were unable 
to keep priests in their houses ; and also to visit the sick. 
He was very ingenious in disguising himself : he would 
change his hair, his beard, and his clothes, so as to appear 
sometimes as a merchant, at others as a servant, or even as 
a man of the world. He could speak French, Flemish, or 
Spanish, as occasion required, and thoroughly imitated a 
foreign and imperfect pronunciation of his native English, 
so that often, when assuming another character, even his 
most intimate acquaintance did not recognise him before 
he made himself known. By these artifices, rendered 
necessary in those unhappy times, he was able to minister 
much good to his neighbour, especially during the last two 
years of his life among the destitute Catholics of London.' 
The pursuivants were always on his track, for London — 
especially under the Puritan rebels — was far more dangerous 
than Lancashire ; and at last they arrested him in the street 
on October 4, 1642, three weeks before the battle of Edge- 
hill. He was in prison until his trial. There he lived ' with 
such moderation in food, sleep, and all beside, and with such 
singular innocence and gentleness of life, that he soon gained 
the affection of all his fellow-prisoners, although many of them 
were hostile to the faith. He very seldom used his bed for 
taking his rest : sometimes he spent the night reclining in a 
chair, sometimes in walking about his cell, praying or medita- 
ting on divine things, having taken off his shoes that he might 
not disturb the repose of others. He used to take every 
opportunity of collecting his thoughts ; and, betaking himself 
to a cell, or to some unobserved corner of the prison yard, 
would there recite his Office. The rest of the day he would 
spend in profitable conversation. The Catholics affirmed 
that nothing which he had said or done would not beseem 
a holy man, and the Protestants were much grieved when 
they heard that he was sentenced to death. Some of them 


declared that they had never met with a more innocent 
man ; indeed, they said, if all Jesuits were like him, they did 
not understand how men could, with justice, revile them.* 

On December 7, Father Holland was brought before the 
Court, indicted for the treasonable offence of being a priest in 
Roman Orders. Three of the witnesses against him were 
pursuivants, or, as we should say, detectives ; the fourth 
was an apostate priest, Thomas Gage, brother of the gallant 
and loyal Colonel Sir Henry Gage who was killed fighting for 
the King, near Abingdon, in January 1644, and of George 
Gage, a faithful Catholic priest. This miserable betrayer 
said that he had been with the accused at St. Omer's for five 
years, and gave other evidence. Holland admitted that he 
had been at the Colleges of St. Omer and Valladolid, but, 
without denjang, said that it had not been proved against 
him that he was an ordained priest, or had celebrated Mass. 
The Judge said : ' Will you swear that you are not a priest 
now ? ' Holland replied : * It is not the custom of the 
English law for the accused to clear himself by oath ; but 
either the crimes laid in the indictment must be clearly 
proved, or else the accused be acquitted and set at liberty.' 
He was a graceful speaker, and his defence was much 
applauded by those in Court. 

On Saturday, December 10, Holland, at 8 a.m., was again 
placed at the bar, and asked what he had to say why sentence 
of death should not be passed. He repeated in a few words 
his defence that, according to the law of England, it ought 
to have been proved by witnesses that he was ordained a 
priest, or at least that he ' had exercised at some time sacer- 
dotal functions by preaching, hearing confessions, or cele- 
brating Mass. But my accusers have brought nothing of this 
sort against me, nor do I think they can do so now ; nor have 
they been able to mention the name of any one whom I 
have persuaded to change his religion, or whom I have in 


any way deceived.' ' I confess,' replied the Judge, ' that I 
find nothing in your Hfe or morals to displease me. By 
the laws it is enacted that whosoever, being a subject of the 
King, takes Orders by authority of the Church of Rome, and 
returns into England, is guilty of high treason, and incurs 
the penalty of death. The jury have found you guilty upon 
this charge upon presumption, which at least is a legitimate 
and full proof, and nothing therefore remains for me, except, 
according to the form prescribed by law, to pass such sentence 
upon you as is appointed for priests and traitors. You will 
therefore return to the prison whence you came, and thence 
be drawn to the place of execution and there be hanged by the 
neck till you are half dead ; your bowels shall then be taken 
out and burnt before your face, your head cut off, and your 
body divided into four parts, to be exposed in the usual places 
in this city ; and so may the Lord have mercy on your soul.' 

Father Holland, with grateful and humble joy, exclaimed 
' Deo gr alias,'' and on his return to Newgate begged his 
Catholic fellow-prisoners to join with him in a Te Deum 
by way of thanksgiving. 

This was on Saturday, and his execution was fixed for 
the following Monday, December 12, 1642. During these 
few hours ' many persons came to visit him of all nations, 
ages, sex, and condition — English, Spanish, French, Flemish 
— whom he received with religious modesty mingled with ad- 
mirable cheerfulness and firmness. He addressed them in 
words full of piety, with a placid countenance, and the 
foreigners in their own language, aptly and skilfully, to the 
great admiration of all.' ' The prison,' says the narrator, 
' assumed more the appearance of a fair than a gaol.' Some 
were brought there by curiosity, some by piety, some by 
grief, to bid farewell to so good a friend ; some to receive 
a last sacrament at his hands, since priests under sentence of 
death were allowed to say Mass openly in prison. Some 


Catholics brought Protestant friends, hoping that they 
would be moved by the Father's discourse and example. 
To one such Protestant Father Holland said : ' You expect, 
I see, that I should say something to you. Now, should I 
tell you there is a plurality of Gods, you would justly deem 
me to be a lying man ; equally might you consider me a liar 
should I tell you that faith is not one. There is only one 
God, one faith, one religion, one Church, in which, and for 
which, I am about to die. Behold, therefore, how great an 
interest you have in following and embracing this one.' The 
Protestant was struck by these words, which, or the look of 
the martyr, led to his conversion to Catholicism. The Duke 
de Vendome, of the French Royal House, who was in London, 
offered to intercede with the authorities, but Father Holland 
begged him not to take so much trouble for one so unworthy. 
A Portuguese nobleman, who said that he was descended from 
the Holland family — probably from the old Earls of Kent — 
sent a painter to take his likeness. This Father Holland at 
first declined, until the nobleman obtained an order from his 
religious Superior that he should comply.^ At the end of 
this busy Saturday, which had begun with his sentence, the 
Father said to those present : ' Gentlemen and friends, 
allow me, I beg you, to collect my thoughts for a short time, 
and to pray to Almighty God for you and for myself. And 
you, again, who hear me, pray the same God to give you 
patience and perseverance at this time. Nor let the insolent 
and malicious pride of a few persons terrify you, who have 
it in their minds not only to take away the faithful servants 
of God, but even, if they could, to hurl God himself from his 

* It is probably this portrait, or a replica of it, which the Teresian nuns at Lan- 
herne in Cornwall still possess, though there is another and more singular story as 
to its origin. The nuns had the picture as long ago as 1645, when their house was 
at Antwerp The photograph in this chapter is from this miniature at Laiiherne ; 
but as it is impossible to get a clear photograph from the old miniature it has gone 
through a clarifying process. In tliis is lost a very slight auburn beard which 
appears in the miniature, but which in an unclarified photograi^h comes out as 
a dark smudge. 


throne. Doubt not but that the blood of martyrs will 
appease their fury. Do you, in the meantime, remember 
me in your prayers, and I will not forget you.' 

On the next morning — that of the Third Sunday in 
Advent — he heard several confessions, and, after celebrating 
Mass — (how moving these last celebrations must have been !) 
— he administered to many the Sacrament. During this 
day also he received many visitors. Among these was the 
Spanish Ambassador, to whom he promised that in gratitude 
for all the kindness shown by the Spanish Government 
to Enghsh Catholics, he would offer his last Mass for the 
King and Kingdom of Spain. He sat down to supper with 
his friends, but would take nothing but an egg and a little 
wdne. This he said would give him a little more blood 
to shed for Christ. ' So, on Monday the 12th of December, 
Father Holland, having said Mass very early in the morning, 
before he had finished his thanksgiving, received the news 
that the hurdle was at the door ready to draw him to Tyburn. 
He descended with alacrity, giving his benedictions to 
the bystanders.' Neither of the Sheriffs of London 
and Middlesex were, as usual, present. It was believed 
that they considered it to be a judicial murder ; the Sheriff 
of London had applied to the Parliament Executive Com- 
mittee for a respite, but had been refused. These gentlemen, 
who were themselves in active rebellion against their King, 
had usurped and abused his prerogative of mercy. A 
Serjeant, who was officially walking beside the hurdle as 
two horses dragged it through the winter mud and over the 
stones, told people who asked about the prisoner that ' he 
was going to die contrary to law, right, and justice.' 

At Tyburn was assembled a great crowd. The Spanish 
Ambassador was present, with his household. Another 
priest of the Society of Jesus, who had assisted Father 
Holland in prison, was there in disguise, and, taking his hand, 
said : ' Be of good cheer, and bear yourself bravely.' To 


whom he replied : ' By God's grace you have no cause to 
fear ; my courage will not fail.' 

When he was unbound from the hurdle he stood up and 
said to the people that he would speak to them, and say 
nothing offensive to any man. ' But what am I doing ? 
I ought to begin with that sign by virtue whereof Christians 
may overcome their enemy.' Then fortifying himself with 
the sign of the Cross, he proceeded : ' No one can possibly 
be offended at this, being the sign of a Christian man.' 
Then he went on, ' in a firm yet sweet voice,' expressing 
his desire that God would pardon his enemies, but repeating 
his view that his condemnation had not been according to 
the English rules of the law-game. ' However,' he concluded, 
' I confess before this assembly here present that I am a 
Catholic and a priest, and, by the infinite goodness of God, 
a religious of the Society of Jesus, and the first of that 
Order sentenced to death since the beginning of the present 
Parliament. For all which benefits conferred upon me, 
though undeserving of them, I give the greatest thanks 
to God immortal.' 

He then began to explain to the people the true nature 
of the Roman and Catholic Church ; but here he was inter- 
rupted by questions and statements made by the chaplain 
of Newgate, who was in official attendance. The chaplain 
then told him to speak no more to the people, but to say his 
prayers to himself, while he talked to the two robbers, who 
were also to be hung. ' Thus, whilst the minister was 
delivering a long address to the robbers, and praying ex- 
temporaneously and verbosely, singing also some psalms 
in English, Father Holland, turning another way, communed 
with God with a quiet and composed air. At length, when 
the minister had finished, he said : ' Mr. Minister, I have 
not interrupted you in your preaching and praying, and 
now in your turn let me pray to God with a loud voice 
that all may hear what I say.' The chaplain began to 


cavil, and say that it was unnecessary, because he had 
ah'eady prayed for him and the two others. ' But I will 
allow you,' he said, ' on one condition — that, whenever 
you fall into error, I may interrupt and correct you.' The 
Father accepted the condition, and, reverently kneeling 
down, signed himself with the sign of the Cross, using the 
Latin formula, and then began to pray in English, with a 
clear voice and earnest piety, first returning to God thanks 
for all His benefits from his birth, and especially for the 
greatest favour of dying for his religion and for the Catholic 
priesthood ; he then expressed the most lively sentiments 
of faith, hope, and charity, asking pardon for his sins, ac- 
knowledging that he was nothing of himself, and could do 
nothing without the help of God, offering to Him his memory, 
his understanding, and his will, and all his powers and 
faculties of soul and body, and lastly himself and his life 
as a sacrifice. ' Receive me,' he said, ' O Father of Mercies, 
as Thou seest me ; and receive these my unworthy sufferings 
w^hich I most willingly offer to Thee in union with the most 
holy Passion of Thy only-begotten Son, to be, I hope, more 
acceptable by the virtue and in union of what my sweetest 
Redeemer Jesus suffered ; together with the merits of 
all who have been, or are, or shall be accepted by Thee.' 
Afterwards he said : ' I forgive my judge and his assessors 
who condemned me ; I forgive the jury who brought me 
in guilty on a capital charge ; I forgive my accusers and all 
others who in any way are the cause of my coming to a 
violent death.' He added prayers for the King, the Queen, 
their family and the Parliament and nation, for whose 
good, restoration to the faith, and eternal welfare, he said, 
* if I had as many lives as there are hairs on my head, drops 
in the ocean, stars in the firmament, jjerfections in the Lord 
of Heaven, I would most willingly lay them all down for 
this purpose.' This the spectators applauded. 

' Then, turning to the executioner, he said : ' Well, 


Gregory, I also willingly pardon you for carrying out my 
sentence,' and he gave him all the money he had — two gold 
crowns. Then, reopening his eyes, which had been closed 
for a short time, he fixed them upon the priest of the Society 
of Jesus, his helper, who, on this signal, as had been previously 
agreed upon, gave him the last absolution, so that he heard 
the final words of the formula.' 

The cart drove away from beneath him and he was left 
hanging. A Catholic bystander removed the cap which 
had been placed over his face, and revealed a countenance 
not at all distorted, but having an angelic expression. The 
Newgate chaplain, fearing the effect which might be pro- 
duced on the people, called to the executioner to cut him 
down half dead, according to the sentence ; but the more 
humane Gregory pretended to be busied with something 
until life was quite extinct, and the rest of the legally 
prescribed butchery could be effected upon a dead body. 

The authorities had often been embarrassed by the 
undesired effect which these martyrdoms produced on the 
people. An official memorandum of 1586, endorsed ' The 
means to stay the declining in religion through the Seminaries 
offending in practice,' said, inter alia : ' The execution of 
them [the seminary priests], as experience hath showed, 
in respect of their constancy, or rather obstinacy, moveth 
many to confession, and draweth some to affect their religion, 
upon conceit that such an extraordinary contempt of death 
cannot but proceed from above, whereby many have fallen 
away. And therefore it is a thing meet to be considered 
if it were not convenient that some other remedy be put 
into execution.' It might be a memorandum by a puzzled 
Roman official with regard to early Christian victims of 
religious laws. 

Thomas Holland suffered in the forty-second year of 
his age. ' In stature he was below the middle size ; he had 
a handsome face, florid complexion, auburn beard, dark 


hair, large and prominent eyes — the expression of which 
was subdued by his sweet and pleasing manners.' 

It was a proof of the respect felt for this martyr that no 
idle ballads, so usual on such occasions, were sung in the 
streets, nor were any insulting words uttered against him. 
A Catholic nobleman, in whose house Father Holland had 
lived, testified with tears that of all the priests he had known, 
he considered this Father most worthy of such a crown. 
A Protestant also was heard to say : ' When, in all our life, 
shall we see another — when shall we see anyone of our 
religion — die so nobly ? ' 

Father Corby concludes his account of Thomas Holland, 
in the ' Certamen Triplex,' by saying : ' His true character 
was that he had extraordinary talents for promoting the 
greater glory of God, and that he made extraordinary use 
of them. His knowledge in spirituals was such that he 
was termed the library of piety, Bibliotheca pietatis. And 
whenever he was in company, whatever the subject of 
the conversation happened to be, he would by a dexterous 
turn bring it to some moral or gospel instruction for the 
advantage of the company ; imitating the great St. Francis 
Xavier, of whom it used to be said that in his conversation 
with people of the world, ' he would go in at their door and 
come out at his own.' 

Among the Stonyhurst MS. there is a little volume, in 
handwriting, of an ascetical work by Father Thomas Cooke. 
Opposite the title-page this Father wrote a note that this 
book was entirely in the handwi'iting of Father Thomas 
Holland, Martyr, and that it was done while Father Holland 
was studying at Liege, where Father Cooke was at that time 
' Confessor Domi.' He says : ' So far from my asking him 
to do it, or even thinking of such a thing, he, Father Holland, 
come to me and begged and intreated that, ill-suited — so his 
humility would have it — for theological studies, I would 
allow him to spend some of his time usefully in transcribing 


this book.' Two observations, it may be added, are made in 
the Annual Letter of the Rector of the College of Liege for 
the year 1642 : one, that the College gloried in the fact 
that Thomas Holland received Holy Orders in it ; the other, 
that he was the first of its alumni who had shed his blood for 
Christ, and that the news of his most holy death was received 
there with incredible joy.^ 

Another Lancashire gentleman, of the fine old Lancashire 
race of the Barlows, near neighbours of the Hollands of 
Clifton and Denton, who lived at Barlow Hall in Chorlton 
from the days of Edward I to the end almost of the 
eighteenth century, met the same fate as Thomas Holland, 
at nearly the same time. He was Edward Barlow, son of 
Sir Alexander Barlow, and was known in religion as ' Father 
Ambrose of the Order of ' Saint Benedict,' and in 1610 was 
at the English College of Valladolid. He was the truest 
possible saint, and his character is very beautifully described 
by Bishop Challoner in his ' Memoirs of Missionary Priests.' 
For twenty years he laboured in Lancashire, doing nothing 
but religious good to Catholics, and suffered martyrdom at 
Lancaster, to please or appease the then dominant faction, on 
September 10, 1641, at the age of fifty-five. He, too, was a 
martyr for the real and visible unity of the Catholic Church, 
which is, according to St. Augustine, the highest outward 
or sacramental form of Caritas. 

The other Jesuit priests of the seventeenth century 
belonging to the Sutton family were Henry Holland, an 
uncle, and Alexander, a nephew, of the martyred Thomas. 

Henry Holland was born in 1576. He went to the 
English College in Rome, where a note in the Rectorial 
Diary says that he was ' always modest, but too good friends 
with the disobedient.' He became a priest in 1603, went on 
the English mission in 1605, and entered the Jesuit Order 
in 1609. All his many years in England he was employed 

^ Foley's Records, vii. 188. 


in his own county of Lancashire. There he made numerous 
converts, some of them persons of note. In a letter about 
his death, dated March 1656, the Rector of the College at 
Liege wrote : ' He alone among a great company of the gravest 
Fathers was selected to hear the first confession of that very 
celebrated man, justly ranked among the most learned 
men of his day — Mr. James Anderton of Lostock, the author 
of the very erudite work entitled " The Apology of Protes- 
tants." ' It was also said of him that ' by his candour of 
manner, innocence of life, and gentleness in dealing with his 
neighbour, he won the esteem of all and a high reputation 
for sanctity. So much so that the leading Catholics in all 
the places where he lived entrusted their concerns to him 
for his advice.' 

The full and curious title of James Anderton's book is, 

* The Protestants Apologie for the Roman Chvrch. 
Hiuided into three seuerall Tractes.' The first edition 
was published in 1604, and led to some heavy, long- 
forgotten controversy. Rather more is known of another 
member of the same old Lancashire family, Lawrence Ander- 
ton, brother of Squire Christopher Anderton of Lostock. 
Five Andertons of the Lostock race fell later in the Civil 
War fighting for the King and the Conservative cause. 
They were connected by an earlier marriage with the Hollands 
of Denton. Lawrence Anderton was a scholar at Christ's 
College, Cambridge, w^here he took his degree in 1597, 
and so eloquent was he that he was called ' silver-mouthed 
Anderton.' Anthony a Wood says that he was disturbed 
by doubts as to the origin of the Reformation, and that 

* his mind hanging upon the Roman Catholic religion he 
left that college, and, shipping himself beyond the seas, 
entered into Roman Catholic Orders, and became one of the 
learnedest among the papists.' He became a Jesuit in 1604, 
worked for forty years on the mission in Lancashire, wrote 
several books, and died in 1643 at the age of sixty-six. He 


must have been an intimate friend and colleague in that 
province of Father Henry Holland. 

According to one account, Henry Holland was arrested 
in 1648, tried, and condemned to die, but had his sentence 
commuted to perpetual banishment. According to a more 
probable statement he was simply recalled by his superiors 
from England at that date because his age and growing 
deafness made him no longer suitable for active work in 
that dangerous period. He spent his remaining years in 
the College at Liege, and died there on February 29, 1656, 
at the age of eighty, having spent forty-seven years of hi& 
life in the Society. The Rector wrote of him after his death : 
' Father Holland was a man of great innocence of life 
and extraordinary piety. He bore the affliction of his 
deafness with equanimity and cheerfulness, and endeared 
himself to all by his purity of life and sweetness of manners. 
His deafness prevented his enjoyment of conversation 
during the customary times of recreation, so that he spent 
nearly the whole of his time in prayer with God, his close 
union with Whom was frequently manifested by his raising 
his eyes and hands to heaven. He died rather from old 
age and decay of nature than from any real disease.' 

Little is known of the third Jesuit priest of this family, 
Alexander Holland, nephew of the martyred Thomas » 
He was born in 1623, entered the Valladolid College in 
1642 — the year of his uncle's death — and obtained a university 
prize on the occasion of the funeral of Isabella, Queen of 
Spain. His name appears as one of the Jesuits of the College 
of St. Aloysius, in the Lancashire district of the English 
province, in the year 1655. He was then aged thirty-two, 
and had been for four years a priest of the Society of Jesus. 
He served in this mission until he died in Lancashire on 
May 29, 1677. 

The Hollands of Sutton were, of course — as Catholics — ■ 
engaged upon the Royalist side in the Civil War. At 


the close of the war their estate was sequestered by 
ParHament on account of the owner's — Richard Holland — 
' recusancy and delinquency.' This was the second Richard, 
nephew of the martyr, who, like his grandfather, had 
married a lady named Anne. He died in 1649, and after 
his death the ruined estate was seized for a time by 
a creditor. His son and heir was Edward Holland, who 
was twenty-four when he signed the pedigree for Dugdale's 
Visitation of Lancashire in 1664. In 1679, when the popish 
plot agitation was boiling, he was declared a recusant 
together with Esther his wife, and in his old age — for he 
was then seventy-six — he was on April 10, 1716, ' convicted 
as a popish recusant,' at the Lancaster Quarter Sessions, 
probably in connection with the recent Jacobite rising in 
the north. When the Earl of Derwentwater, with his 
Scots and Northumbrians, marched as far as Preston, he 
was joined by many Lancashire Catholic gentlemen, though 
the High Church Tories failed to consummate Jacobite 
talk in action. Edward Holland died soon after, and, in 
1717, Thomas Holland of Sutton his successor, registered 
his estate as a ' Catholic non-juror.' He still possessed 
Sutton Hall, but the Manor had been sold in 1700. Another 
Jesuit ' of Lancashire,' Richard Holland, who was born in 
1676, was professed in 1715 ; for many years in those milder 
times lived at Wardour ; and was afterwards Rector of a 
college, and died at Paris, July 1, 1740. He seems to have 
been a younger brother of this last Thomas Holland. The 
Hollands had been owners of land at Sutton for about four 
hundred years. What became of them afterwards, or 
whether they entirely died out, is not known. Baines, in his 
' History of Lancashire', says that the Sutton Hall standing in 
his time existed before the year 1567. It was in the Parish 
of St. Helen, in the West Derby Hundred, in the plain 
which is now no longer green and rural, but a dark industrial 


Thurstan de Holland, : 
eldest son of William de 
Holland of Sharpies (a 
grandson of Sir Thurstan 
Holland of UphoUand) 
and of Margaret de Shores- 
worth, heiress of Denton; 
of full age 1316; stiU 
living 1368. 

Mary, d. of John OoUyer. 

Bichard de Holland ; = Aimeria, d. of Adam 
6. about 1325, d. 1403. I de Kenyon. 

Thurstan Holland ; = Agnes, d. of ■ 
h. about 1360, d. I 

William Holland = Marjory, d. of Henry 
I de TrafEord. 

— Hollands of CUfton, &c. 

Three other 

Thurstan Holland ; = Margaret, d. of Sir Lawrence 

6. about 1390, 
before 1467. 

Warren of Poynton. She d. 
before 1442. He also married 
three other wives, s.p. 

Eichard Holland ; 
b. 1432, d. 1483. 

=.^gnes, d. of ■ 

Three other sons, 
Richard, Henry, and 
Thomas ; all living in 

Richard Holland ; = Isabella, d. of Sir William 
6. about 1450, d. I Harrington of Hornby ; 
about 1501. about 1466. 

Two other sons, Nicholas and Lawrence, 
Uving 1510 ; and a d., Margaret, who m. 
OUver Anderton. 

Thurstan Holland ; = Joan, d. of John Ardeme. 
6. about 1470, d. Oct. i She afterwards m. Sir John 
11, 1508.^ : Warren of Poynton. 

Four other sons, William, Robert, Thomas, 
and Peter, and a d., Ellen, who m. 1501 John 

Robert Holland ; = Elizabeth, d. of Sir 
6. about 1491, d.s.p. Richard Ashton. 

1 Sir Richard Holland ; = (1) Anne, d. of John = (2) Eleanor, d. of Sir Ralph Hj | 
6. about 1493, (i. 1548. Pitton of Gawsworth. I bottle of Beamish, Durham. 

(2) CecOy, d. of = 
Edmund TrafEord 
and widow of i?ir 
Robert Langley of 
Agecroft in 1562. 

Edward Holland; 
6. about 1520, d. 
Aug. 22, 1570. 

■■ (1) Jane, d. of 
John Carring- 

Three sons, Richard, 
Ralph, and Randle, 
who all d.s.p. ; and a 
d., Margaret. 

Richard Holland ; 
Uving 1548. 

Mary = Arthur, s( I 
Sir Geoi] 
Poole. } 

Richard Holland ; = Margaret, 

6. about ir.46, d. 
March 2, 1619, with- 
out male issue. 

d. of Sir 
Rob er t 
of A g e- 


Edward Holland ; = (1595), Anne, d. of 

&. about 1550, d. 

Edmund Gamull, 
Alderman of 
Chester, and 
widow of John 

John Holland ; 
living 1571. 

Eight daughteis. 

Edward Holland ; = Anne 
d.s.p. Rigby. 

Thomas Holland 
of Denton and 
Heaton ; d. unm. 
May 22, 1664. 

William Holland = Cecily, d. of 

(Rev.) of Denton I Alex. Walt- 

and Heaton; &. ham of 

1612, d. 1682. I Wistaston, 


Edward Holland ; 
6. 1662, d. 1683. 

Richard, Prances, and 
Jane ; d. children. 

Col. Richard Holland 
of Denton and Heaton, 
M.P., &c. ; b. 1596, d. 

d. of Wm. 
Ram sden 
of Lang- 
ley, Torks. 

Elizabeth = Sir John Egerton 
I of Wrinehill, 
Bart., Nov. 27, 

Earls of Wilton, 
owners of Denton and Heaton. 

Edward Holland ; 
d. July 11, 1655, 
before his father. 

: Anne, d. of 
Warren of 

Prances Holland ; 
d. unmarried. 

Sir Richard Holland also had three illegitimate sons, mentioned in his will. 

Two other sons, 
John and Henry, 
d. unm., and five 
daughters, Mary, 
EUzabeth, Anne, 
Prances, and 
Jane, all married 
into Cheshire and 



La vie champestre est la vraye vie d'un gentilhomme. 

Pierre Matthiett, 

Sir Thurstan de Holland (the second) bom under 
Edward I, and living far into the reign of Edward III, 
founded the line of Hollands of Denton and their early- 
branch of Clifton. He was great-grandson to the first Sir 
Thurstan de Holland, of Upholland. The eldest son of the 
last-named Thurstan of Upholland was Sir Robert, ancestor 
of the Earls of Kent and Huntingdon. One of the same 
Thurstan's younger sons was Sir William de Holland, who 
possessed the Manor of Sharpies. This Sir William had a son 
also named William, and also knighted. This second Sir 
William was legally married to Joan de Pleasington, by 
whom he had no children, but was less formally united to 
an heiress of quality named Margaret de Shoresworth, and 
by her became father to Thurstan Holland the second. 

The informal nature of the union between Sir William 
de Holland and Margaret de Shoresworth is shown by 
various legal documents, from which it appears that 
Thurstan was born when his mother, Margaret, was an 
unmarried girl, a little before the year 1300. Margaret 
was, after this, twice legally married : once to Henry de 
Worsley, who died in 1304, and once to Robert de Radcliffe, 
and had children by both. She died in 1363, when she must 
have been about eighty, giving in that year to her son, 
Thurstan de Holland, all her goods, movable and immovable. 
In various documents and deeds Thurstan is referred to 
sometimes as the ' son of Sir William de Holland,' sometimes 
as ' the son of Margaret Shoresworth,' and sometimes as the 



son of them both. In 1315, land in Pleasington was settled 
upon Sir William de Holland and Joan his wife, with remain- 
der — in default of their issue — to Thurstan, son of William.^ 
Thus Joan seems to have acquiesced. In 1316 Sir William 
de Holland, granted his inherited Manor of Sharpies to 
' Thurstan, son of Margaret de Shoresworth,' for life. A 
grant of land at Denton was made in 1325 to ' Thurstan, son 
of Margaret de Shoresworth,' and Sir William de Holland 
witnessed the deed. In 1330, by a deed dated at Denton 
on the Feast of St. Hilary, Alexander de Shoresworth, her 
uncle, granted to ' Margaret, daughter of Robert de Shores- 
worth,' all his messuages, lands, and tenements in the Hamlet 
of Denton, in tail. A few days later, Margaret de Shores- 
worth granted the same estates to Thurstan de Holland, her 
son, in tail, with remainder, in default of his issue, to William, 
son of Robert de Radcliffe and his heirs, and further 
remainders to other Radcliffes and Worsleys. Five years 
later, by another deed, Thurstan de Holland, calling himself 
' son of William de Holland,' granted to ' Margaret, my 
mother,' a life interest in the Denton estate. In 1319, Sir 
Robert de Holland granted lands in Heaton to ' Thurstan 
de Holland, son of Margaret de Shoresworth.' 

It has been suggested that Sir William de Holland had 
been married, without a dispensation, to Margaret, but that 
the marriage was within forbidden degrees, but there is no 
evidence of this. It is clear as day that Sir William, not 
having a son by his lawful wife, Joan de Pleasington, in- 
tended and took much trouble to found a family through 
Thurstan, his son by Margaret. For that purpose, he 
endowed him by grant with the Sharpies estate, while 
Margaret's uncle, Alexander de Shoresworth, also not 
having heirs, endowed Thurstan with the Denton estate, 
a life interest for Margaret being subsequently arranged. 

' There is a series of documents bearing on this subject in the appendices to 
Mr. Irvine's book, The Hollands of Mobherley and Knutsford. 


Thus Thurstan de Holland was in a perfectly open way- 
treated by every one as the son of Sir William, as in fact 
he was. If one studies chronicles and local histories, one 
sees that the position of ' natural ' children was happier 
and better in medieval England than it is now, when such 
children usually suffer in darkness and loss of status for 
sins which are none of theirs. Medieval society was more 
sincere, and paid less devout homage to respectability, 
and such children — at any rate, if their mothers were ladies 
of some quality — were acknowledged and provided for, and 
if they belonged to good families they were openly and 
justly proud of the fact. 

Since, however, Thurstan de Holland was not his father's 
legal heir-at-law, the entailed family land in the tenure of 
Sir William, passed at his death (about 1318) not to Thurstan, 
but to his uncle, Sir Robert de Holland, who apparently 
gave it, or some of it, back to Thurstan. The following 
table shows the derivation of Denton Manor.^ 

Robert de Shoresworth = Cecilie, heiress of Denton. 

Alexander de Shoresworth = d. of . William = , d. of 

•conveyed Denton to his niece 
Margaret's son, Thurstan 

Robert de Shoresworth = , d. of 

Margaret de Shoresworth, = Sir William de Holland, 
by non-legal union. I 

Sir Thurston Holland = , d. of 

of Denton ) 

Hollands of Denton, Clifton, &e. 

^ See Lancashire Inquisitions, vol. i. p. 150 ; Chetham Society Papers, vol. xcv. 
See also, Vict. Co. History of Lane., vol. iv. pp. 312, 378, 395, and vol. v. p. 261. 
Also Irvine's Hollands of Mobberley and Knutsford. It is not quite clear whether 
Alexander was uncle or a great-uncle of Margaret. 


Denton Hall stood about five miles south-east of the 
old town of Manchester. The manor remained in the 
possession of Thurstan de Holland and his lineal male de- 
scendants from 1330 to 1686 — about 350 years. Thurstan 
also acquired the Manor of Heaton, just north of Man- 
chester, which at a much later date became chief residence 
of this family. 

These Hollands of Denton always held the position of 
a county family on the higher level, and married into 
like families in Lancashire and Cheshire ; but they played 
their part on the provincial and not on the national scene. 
No doubt they were sometimes in the Scottish wars, for it 
was the duty for the gentlemen in the nine northern counties 
to quell the Scots, while those of the south were engaged 
in the more pleasant and profitable trade of war in sunny 
France. Richard de Holland was, however, one of the 
Lancashire gentlemen summoned on March 28, 1373, to 
serve the Duke of Lancaster in an expedition to France. 

Thurstan de Holland, son of William and Margaret, 
was in political trouble in the reign of Edward III, for, on 
June 12, 1346, that King issued letters patent to him from 
Windsor stating that, ' at the request of our cousin, Henry 
of Lancaster, Earl of Derby,' he pardons Thurstan de Holland 
for all felonies and transgressions committed against the 
King's peace prior to the 16th of June last passed.' History 
does not record what were these felonies and transgressions^ 
but, ever since the affair of Boroughbridge, the Holland 
clan had no doubt been in disfavour with the potentate 
of the north — Henry of Lancaster. Probably Sir Thomas 
Holland, K.G., the near cousin of Thurstan and then in 
high favour at Windsor, negotiated this pardon. John 
Holland, youngest son of Thurstan, by the way, had 
been outlawed in 1338 for an assault, vi et armis, on 
William de Hulton, and all his cattle were confiscated. 


Thurstan de Holland was of full age in 1316, and was 
still living in 1368 ; so that he attained to a considerable 
age. He was knighted before 1355. He married Mary, 
daughter of John Collyer, and was succeeded in the pos- 
session of Denton and Heaton, and other estates, by his 
eldest son, Richard, who was born about 1325, married 
Aimeria, daughter of Adam de Kenyon, and died in 1402. 
Sir Thurstan's second son, William de Holland, married 
Marjory, daughter and co-heiress of Henry de Trafford, and 
so acquired the manor of Clifton in Prestwich, and founded 
the line of Hollands who held it till the seventeenth century, 
and have left descendants to the present day. 

The pedigree of the Hollands of Denton was very well kept, 
but their recorded history, like that of most county families, 
mainly consists of births, marriages, settlements, deaths, and 
transactions in land. They were squires of considerable 
standing, and married into neighbouring families of like 
degree. Sir Richard Holland of Denton, made a Knight by 
Henry VIII in 1544, died in 1548, leaving a large family 
of legitimate children by two wives, and also three illegiti- 
mate sons, whom, with the candour of that age, he com- 
mended by will — as they were then minors — ^to the care 
of his second wife. His eldest legal son, Edward, was 
born about 1520, and died in 1570. Edward's eldest son, 
Richard, was born about 1546. This Richard Holland of 
Denton was Sheriff of Lancashire in 1571, 1573, 1580, and 
1595. He was ' much honoured by the Queen for his zeal 
against recusants,' and he took an active part against the 
Catholic gentry, then so numerous in Lancashire, among 
whom were some distant relatives of his own name, and in 
hunting down ' popish priests ' and Jesuit missionaries. 
Edmund Campion, the brave and cultivated young Oxford 
Jesuit, who died at Tyburn in 1581, wrote in a letter from Lan- 
cashire, in 1580, that ' Holland of Denton is a rigid Puritan.* 


Richard Holland died in 1619, leaving five daughters, but 
without male issue, and was succeeded in the possession of 
Denton and Heaton by his nephew, also named Richard, 
who was born about 1596. These Hollands attained at this 
period to their highest prosperity, and now began to live 
more spaciously at Heaton House than they had lived in their 
ancestral hall of Denton. The second Richard Holland, 
following the religious views of his uncle, took a leading 
part in the local civil war in Lancashire, on the side of 
Parliament. Most of the Lancashire gentlemen, headed by 
Lord Strange, who succeeded late in 1642 to the Earldom 
of Derby, were Royalists, and many of them, including the 
Hollands of Sutton and, probably, Clifton, were Catholics. 
But the small towns of south-east Lancashire — as Man- 
chester, Wigan, Bolton, Warrington, already seats of young 
industries — were strongly Puritan, and so were some of the 
squires in that region, such as the Denton Hollands, the 
Rigbys, Bradshaws, Egertons. 

At Manchester, in 1642, there was a small magazine of 
arms and munitions, which had probably been stored there — 
as that at Hull — with a view to the unsuccessful operations 
against the Scots. Lord Strange arrived from the royal 
headquarters at York on July 4, 1642, with a small armed 
force, and demanded the surrender of the magazine. The 
* Committee of Manchester,' headed by Richard Holland, 
refused, and a skirmish took place. This was the opening 
bloodshed in the Civil War. One townsman was killed — 
Richard Perceval, a linen-webster (first, it is said, of 
all the thousands who died in this war) — and a few were 
wounded. On September 24, the Earl of Derby, as Lord 
Strange had now become on his father's death, returned 
to Manchester at the head of three or four thousand 
men and attacked the town unsuccessfully until December, 
when he retired. 


Richard Holland was now at the head of the Manchester 
Defence Committee, and soon afterwards was appointed by- 
Parliament to be Governor of Manchester. He had a special 
regiment of his own raising, and was known as Colonel 
Holland. Parliament appointed a Colonel for each hundred 
in Lancashire, and Richard Holland was Colonel for the 
Salford Hundred. 

In October 1642, an attempt was made by certain 
Lancashire gentlemen — some on the King's side and some 
on that of the Parliament — to effect a modus vivendi, and 
to save, at any rate, local fighting and bloodshed between 
neighbours, relatives, and friends. Mr. Richard Shuttleworth 
of Gawthorpe — an ancestor of the present Lord Shuttleworth 
— and others, wrote to Richard Holland, and other Parlia- 
mentarians in the Salford Hundred, asking them to meet some 
Royalist gentlemen at Blackburn on Thursday, October 13. 
Holland and Peter Egerton replied that they could not go 
to Blackburn, but would meet the gentlemen at Bolton. 
Arrangements went so far that it was agreed that Richard 
Holland, Peter Egerton, John Bradshaw, Richard Shuttle- 
worth, and two others, should meet an equal number of 
Royalists at Bolton on Tuesday, October 18, at 10 a.m. 
But in the interval, Holland received instructions from 
London, which prevented the holding of the conference. 
He wrote at Manchester on the 15th the following letter, 
preserved in the Ga%vthorpe Collection, with the seal of the 
Hollands attached to it. It is addressed to his ' much 
respected friends, Richard Shuttleworth and John 
Starkey, Esquires.' 

* Gentlemen, — I have had a sight of a letter directed 
from Mr. Alex. Rigby, Mr. Ferington, and Mr. Fleetwood, 
touchynge a meetynge at Boulton uppon Tuesday next. 
'Tis true Mr. Egerton and myselfe ^^Titt to you a letter to 
that purpose ; since when, wee have received commands 


both by letter and Declarations sett forth from Parliament, 
how much it is against their likynge to have any treatie, 
and have therefore declared their utter dislike of the accom- 
modation in Yorkshire. 

' I shall, therefore, not need to give you a reason why 
wee cannot well give a meetynge. As for the peace of this 
country, there is none, I dare answear, desires more the 
preservation thereof than wee hereabouts doe nor shall 
have a greater detestation of those that shall disturbe it. 
And thus leaving the premises to your consideration. 

' I rest, 

* Yo. very lovynge friend, 

' Richard Holland.' 

Manchester, October 15, 1642. 

In 1643 there was a good deal of fighting in Lancashire. 
A force under Major-General Sir John Seaton and Colonel 
Holland marched out of Manchester on February 10, joined 
other troops from Bolton and Blackburn, and stormed 
Preston after two hours' hard fighting, in which many men 
were slain. The Earl of Derby captured Lancaster in March. 
On April 1, the Manchester force, led by Colonel Holland, 
suddenly stormed the town of Wigan, which Lord Derby had 
left garrisoned under a Scot, named Major-General Blair. 
This was a great blow to the Lancashire Royalists. Wigan 
was near Lathom House, the glorious and ancient castle of 
the Stanleys, which Charlotte de la Tremouille, Countess 
of Derby was holding for her lord. On the day of Colonel 
Holland's capture of Wigan, the Countess wrote in her 
distress to Prince Rupert. 

The letter is in French, and, turned into English, runs 
thus : — 

' MoNSEiGNEUR, — I havc just this moment received the 
bad news of the loss of Wigan, six miles from this place ; it 
held out for but two hours, being terrified ; my husband was 
twelve miles off, and before he could make ready to succour 


it they surrendered. In the name of God, Monseigneur, 
take pity on us, and if you show yourself you will be able 
to reconquer it very easily and with great honour to Your 
Highness. I know not what I say ; but have pity on my 
husband, my children, and me. We are ruined for ever, 
unless God and Your Highness have pity on us. 
' I am Monseigneur, 
' Your very humble and obedient servant, 

Lathom, April 1, 1643. 

Warrington was next taken by the Manchester Puritan 
forces. The contemporary author of a ' Briefe Journall of 
the Siege against Lathom,' says : — 

' Upon the surrender of Warrington, May 27, 1643, a 
summons came from Mr. Holland, Governor of Manchester, 
to the Lady Derby to subscribe to the propositions of Parlia- 
ment or yield up Lathom House ; but her ladyship denied 
both : she would neither tamely give up her house nor 
purchase her peace with the loss of her honour.' 

The Countess of Derby was born of one of the noblest 
houses of France, in a most energetic period of French 
history, and was a worthy compatriot and coeval of Anne 
de Bourbon, Duchesse de Longueville. Richard Holland 
was unfortunate in encountering such a heroine in Lancashire, 
for Romance was against him. 

The rest of the war in Lancashire mainly turned on the 
attempts to reduce obstinate Lathom House. A force, 
commanded by Lord Byron, was defeated by Fairfax at 
Nantwich on January 25, 1644. Holland took part in this 
success, and his regiment was mentioned with honour by 
Fairfax in his dispatch. But Lathom House was still 
gallantly holding out in May 1644, and the arrival of Prince 
Rupert's army from the south was daily expected. On 
May 16, the Manchester Committee wrote to Lord Denbigh a 


pressing letter urging him to bring his force to assist or the 
siege might have to be broken up. Lathom was vigorously 
assailed at this time by a Parliamentary force under the 
command of Sir Thomas Fairfax himself, with Richard 
Holland serving under him. At the end of May, Prince 
Rupert relieved the place, and 1600 of the besiegers were 
killed and 700 taken prisoner. The Prince then stormed 
and sacked Puritan Bolton — ' the Geneva of Lancashire,' 
as it was called — and passed away over the moors to his 
final defeat near York. Lathom House fell at last, but 
not till December 1645. 

In the year 1643 an accusation was made against Colonel 
Holland's military conduct by one Rosworm. This kind of 
* Dugald Dalgetty ' was of alien origin, and had served in the 
German wars, and understood how to make fortifications. 
Some citizens of Manchester — worthy drapers and others — 
were horribly afraid in the summer of 1642 that the town 
and their shops would be plundered by Lord Derby and 
his northern cavaliers, and entered into a solemn covenant 
with Rosworm that, if he secured them from this, they would 
pay him certain sums, which they collected by subscription. 
Rosworm, having this kind of independent municipal function, 
soon came into collision with Colonel Holland when the 
latter was appointed by Parliament to be Governor of 
Manchester. He accused him of wishing to surrender 
Manchester in 1642, and of weakness in the attack on War- 
rington, and generally of timidity and indecision, and because 
he refused to take good advice from a professional soldier. 
Holland had to go up to London in the summer or autumn 
of 1643 to appear before a Parliamentary Committee along 
with Rosworm and other witnesses. He was acquitted in 
consequence, says Rosworm, of the fact that ' his great friends 
prevailed for his escape ' in the House, but far more prob- 
ably because the allegations wholly broke down. In 1649 


Rosworm printed a long, egoistic and rambling ' Historical 
Relation of Lieutenant Colonel Rosworm's Service and 
Rewards,' addressed to General Fairfax, John Bradshaw, 
President of the Council, and Lieutenant-General Oliver 
Cromwell, accusing Holland of all kinds of misconduct. 
In this Rosworm took to himself the whole credit of the 
capture of Wigan and said, with probable truth, ' Colonel 
Holland seemed troubled that I perished not in the action.' 
He said that Colonel Holland had afterwards deprived him, 
Rosworm, of part of his pay, ' upon the pretence that I 
had not taken the Covenant,' and he accused Holland of 
cowardice and vacillation on various occasions. ' Alas ! ' 
he wrote, ' Who can settle a trembling heart ? ' 

It seems to be true that at one time in 1642, Holland 
thought it would be necessary to evacuate Manchester for 
want of powder, and because the rustic soldiers in the town 
wished to get back to their villages, and because the enemy 
were growing in strength. But Colonel Holland's real 
offence seems to have been that he refused to be governed 
by Rosworm's opinions and prevented that mercenary 
engineer from getting all the pay that, in his own opinion, 
he deserved. Rosworm was the man with a professional 
grievance, who is always with us, too well known to every 
Governmental department. He and his grievance remain 
petrified for ever at full length in the Chetham Society 
volumes on the ' Civil War in Lancashire.' 

Colonel Holland represented Lancashire in the House of 
Commons during those short Parliaments of 1654 and 1656 
which Oliver Cromwell found so unsatisfactory. He was a 
moderate man of the Presbyterian party, opposed to the 
Independents. He was, probably, like all those moderate 
men, not exactly sorry to see the Restoration, although after 
that event the position of men like himself was unsatisfactory. 
As his friend, Henry Newcome, remarked, the moderate 


Presbyterians were classed by the Royalists with the ' fana- 
tics ' on the alleged ground of want of loyalty, and by the 
fanatics with the Royalists, on the ground of want of enthusi- 
astic piety. This Henry Newcome was Presbyterian minister 
at Manchester, and was evicted after the Restoration. He 
was a weak man, tormented by innumerable petty religious 
scruples, which he recorded in a morbid diary, in which Colonel 
Holland figures from time to time. In 1659 Newcome was 
with Colonel Holland when one Nehemiah Poole was brought 
in and charged before the Colonel, as a magistrate, with the 
offence of being a Quaker. The Colonel ordered him to be 
sent to prison. Nehemiah had just arrived walking from 
Bristol to Manchester and was dripping wet, the water oozing 
above his shoes. He asked that he might first go home to 
his own house to change his clothes. ' The Colonel,' says 
Newcome, ' seemed to give no ear to him ' ; but at last, on 
Newcome' s prayer ' condescended,' and Nehemiah did not 
on that occasion go to prison at all. With base ingratitude 
Nehemiah brought against Mr. Newcome a charge of persecu- 
tion of the saints. Nehemiah was, however, soon afterwards 
sent to prison for three months for coming into the parish 
church during the sermon with nothing but a shirt on, 
and there lifting up his voice to testify. 

On September 18, 1660, Mr. Newcome notes, after saying 
that he was clearly to be ' outed ' from his living : ' Colonel 
Holland came and called on me, and sate with me an hour, 
and gave me his advice which I took very kindly of him.' 
On July 27, 1661, Colonel Holland lay dying at Heaton. 
The Lord Delamere took Newcome in his coach to see him, 
and on the way they discoursed much on the present state 
of affairs. Newcome, as they drove home again, ' had the 
hap to speak an improper word : it was this, that Mr. 
Angier [another divine] had great hopes of Colonel Holland 
because he had by many offices of love in times past, engaged 


the prayers of good people for him, and I had the hap to say 
that he was the object of many good prayers. I was sensible 
it was a wrong word, and it troubled me ill, and I thought 
it might make me ridiculous.' The point of this story 
is not very obvious, but it shows the esteem in which 
Richard Holland was held among his friends. Two days 
later, he died. Newcome notes in his diary on July 29 : 
* Mr. Harrison and Mr. Angier called on me and told me 
they were present with Colonel Holland when he died, this 
day about three o'clock. A very prudent, able. Common- 
wealth man is now gone, and a true friend to good 
ministers.' He was sixty years old when he died. 

Six years earlier. Colonel Holland had suffered a dreadful 
blow in the loss of his only son, Edward, who died July 3 
1655, aged twenty-nine. Edward had married Anne, only 
daughter of Edward Warren of Poynton in Cheshire.^ She 
was only sixteen when he died, and was left with one 
baby daughter, Frances Holland. Anne survived her 
husband for twenty-five years, and died on November 25, 
1680. A tablet erected by Frances in the old Chapel Church 
of Denton, which long before had been built by the Hollands 
and their neighbours the Hydes, tells this mournful story 
of dying families and disappointed hopes. The touching 
inscription in elegant Latin testifies to the early genius 
of Edward Holland — his learning, his pleasing manners, dis- 
tinguished probity, solid and unfeigned piety — and describes 
him as : — 

' Familise suae Decus et Ornamentum ; 
Patriae suae Spes et Desiderium ; 
Amicorum Delitiae simul ac Solamen.' 

^ These Warrens of Poynton descended from an illegitimate son of the wicked 
Earl of Warenne in Surrey, whose second Countess was Isabel de Holland, sister 
of the fii-st Earl of Kent. Thurstan Holland of Denton, in 1430, had also marrie 
Margaret, a girl of this Warren family. 


His wife is described as ' Cara Deo, dilecta viro.' After 
erecting this monument the lonely Frances Holland vanishes 
into the night of oblivion. 

The late Colonel Richard Holland had been the eldest 
son of a family of six brothers and five sisters. The sisters 
all married into good families of the squire kind in Cheshire 
and Shropshire. The second and third brothers, Edward 
and John, died, without children, before the Colonel. The 
fourth brother, Thomas, survived him for about three 
years, and became Squire of Denton and Heaton. The 
estate was then worth about £800 a year, which would 
mean a good deal more in our days. Thomas Holland 
was a bachelor about sixty years old, but, upon becoming 
Squire, resolved to marry. According to the diarist, Oliver 
Heywood, he ' found out a suitable gentlewoman — one Mrs. 
Britland — and their day of marriage was fixed. But before 
the day of marriage arrived, he fell sick and died, and the 
funeral happening on the same day that had been fixed 
for his marriage, the minister at the funeral preached from 
the same text that had been settled for the marriage, only 
substituting, ' There was a cry made,' for ' Behold the 
bridegroom cometh.' 

Thomas Holland was buried in the Church of Nether 
Peover in Cheshire. There is a flagstone with the incription 
' Here lyeth the body of Thomas Holland of Denton in the 
County of Lancashire, Esquire, who paid his latest debt to 
Nature, May 22, 1664. Here also lies the body of Frances, 
Lady Eyton, sister to the above-said Thomas Holland, who 
died June 23, 1691, aged 83.' In the next grave reposed 
another old sister, Jane Holland, who had married Thomas 
Cholmondeley of Cheshire. She died at seventy-eight, in 

The houses and lands then passed to the third brother, 
the Rev. William Holland, Rector of Malpas in Cheshire, 


who was aged fifty- two when he succeeded in 1664, and 
had not long been married. William had not at all sym- 
pathised with the Presbyterian views of his brother, Colonel 
Richard Holland. During the Cromwell Protectorate, he 
had preached a sermon on the death of a Cheshire cavalier 
gentleman ' not only replete with beautiful descriptions 
of the virtues and sufferings of the deceased, but repro- 
bating with the most incautious zeal the heresies, schisms, 
and personated holiness of the ruling party.' 

The Rev. William Holland, last of the Hollands of Denton 
and Heaton, died on April 29, 1682, at the age of seventy. 
IBy his will, he directed that his body should sleep with 
those ' of my fathers in the chapel of the Prestwich Church, 
which belongs to Heaton Hall and my family, and where 
so many of my ancestors have been buried.' He was suc- 
ceeded in the estates by his son Edward, aged twenty, who 
survived him only a year. Then they passed to his daughter 
Elizabeth Holland, who, on September 27, 1684, married 
Sir John Egerton of Wrinehill in Northamptonshire, a 
maternal ancestor of the present Earls of Wilton. Thus, 
in the generation succeeding to that of Colonel Richard 
Holland and his five brothers, the estates were lost to the 
Hollands for want of male issue. 

Heaton House continued to flourish, but what remained 
of Denton Hall sank at last, like so many old gentry houses, 
into the status of a farm. Only a fragment of it now remains, 
or lately remained. There is an elaborate description of 
it as it stood in 1856, with its carved coats of arms, old hall, 
and fine central fireplace, by Mr. Booker in * Chetham Society 
Miscellanies,' vol. ii, p. 257. Mr. Henry Taylor, in his ' Old 
Halls in Lancashire and Cheshire,' wrote : ' Denton Hall 
was clearly at one time a fine quadrangular building, of 
which two sides now remain, the southerly or central 
portion containing the fine great hall and an eastern 


wing. Both portions have been much injured by the hand 
of man and by the ravages of time.' He thinks that the 
building was erected about the end of the fifteenth century, 
or perhaps earher. ' We have here,' he says, ' in the great 
common hall, the complete arrangements for the lord and 
his retainers dining in common ; but at the end of the 
sixteenth century ' (to which another writer attributed it) 
' a great hall like this, with a massive open timbered roof, 
and with a high table, canopy, and musicians' gallery, had 
gone out of fashion, and was very seldom built.' ^ 

The Denton estate consisted of 549 acres, in the year 
1810. In 1846 the Earl of Wilton's ' Denton Hall estate ' 
contained 603 acres. Heaton Hall was a residence of the 
Earls of Wilton, and in 1901 was sold to the Corporation 
of Manchester for £230,000, for dedication as a fine public 
park covering 693 acres. Elizabeth Holland had certainly 
brought to the Egertons and their successors a goodly 
heritage.^ These Hollands would have become a very rich 
family if they had endured long enough and had held on 
as firmly as they always had done to those estates near 
Manchester, which had descended to them from Sir William 
de Holland and Margaret de Shoresworth. 

^ There is a very full description of Denton Hall in the Victorian History of 
Lancashire, vol. iv. 

^ The present Earls of Wilton are really a branch of the Grosvenors, one of 
whom married an Egerton heiress. They took the family name of Egerton in 
lieu of their own. 



Non mortui laudabunt te, Domine, neque omnes qui descendant in infernum ; 
Sed DOS qui vivimus benedicimus Domino, ex hoc nunc et usque ad saeculum; 

Ps. 113; 

Another line of the Hollands, those of Clifton, branches 
off from the earliest Hollands of Denton. Sir Thurstan 
de Holland, son of Sir William de Holland by Margaret 
de Shoresworth, the first owner of Denton Manor, who lived 
in the reigns of Edward II and Edward III, had a younger 
son named William. This William married Marjory, daughter 
and co-heiress of Henry de Trafford, and through her 
acquired the Manor of Clifton, a few miles north of old 
Manchester. The Hollands, their descendants, possessed the 
manor, hall, and land of Clifton from about the year 1350 
till after the year 1670. This much is quite certain ; but 
except for dim dealings with land, there is hardly any record 
of what they did during these three centuries. It is clear 
from documentary evidence that the second owner of the 
manor was Otho, son of William de Holland and his wife, 
Marjory de Trafford ; and that he was living in 1361. The 
manor is shown by other documentary evidence to have been 
held about the year 1440 by a second Otho Holland. There 
must certainly have been at least one intervening owner, and 
much more probably two, between these two Othos. Between 
them, in all probability, came, for one, a certain Robert 
de Holland, who by his violent actions plays a distinguished 



Sir Thurstan Holland of Denton, = Mary, d. of - 
living temp. Edward III., son of Sir 
William de Holland and Marjory 


Richard Holland. 

Hollands of Denton 
and Heaton. 

William HoUand 

Otho HoUand, 
living 1361 

Marjory, d. of Henry de Trafford 
and heiress of Clifton Manoiv 

d. of 

^ Robert Holland, = Margaret, d. of Thomas 
living till about de Prestwich. 


1 Peter HoUand = 

Otho HoUand, 
living 1440. 

d. of 

d. of 

WiUiam HoUand = Eleanor, d. of 
I Holt. 

Ralph Holland, 
d.s.p. 1505. 

Thomas Holland = 

d. of 

Ralph HoUand. 

WiUiam Holland, = 
living 1506, then 
aged 56. 

d. of 

WiUiam Holland, 
d. Sept. 1523. 

Alice, d. of OrskeU- 


Thomas HoUand, = Ellen, d. of 
Sir Robert 
Langley of 

aged 16 in 1523; 
d. 1565. 

John HoUand, 
2nd son. 

d. of 

Richard Holland = 

WiUiam HoUand, 
d.s.p. 1590 ; and 
two other sons, 
Robert and 
Thomas, who d.s.p. 

Thomas HoUand. = Anne, d. of 
Inherited Clifton 
Manor in 1613. 

Eleanor == Ralph Slade, 

She inherited Clifton 
Manor in 1590, and d. 
in 1613 s.p. 

WiUiam HoUand, = Jane, d. of 

d. 1660. 

Elizabeth HoUand, = Humphrey 
heiress of Clilton de Trafford. 

Manor, was living 

- WiUiam HoUand, = 

= d. of 

6th son ; d. 1603. 


of Rhodes 

d. of 

in Pilk- 

= EUen, d. of 

Edward HoUand = 

of Chorlton, 


younger son, m. 


about 1604. 

= Anne, d. 

WiUiam Holland, = 

b. 1605, d. 1654; 

of Ralph 

bought Mobberley 


estate in Cheshire. 

1 These two are not quite certain. 

HoUands of Mobberley, Sandle- 
bridge, Knutsford, &c. (See next 


part in the fourteenth century history of Prestwich. The seal 
of WilHam Holland of Clifton, attached to a deed of 1361, bore 
the arms of the Hollands of Upholland, a ' lion rampant 
gardant a field seme de fleurs de lys, over all a bend.' But 
in 1533, as appears from the Herald's Visitation, the Hollands 
of Clifton had carved on their house as arms, ' with a second 
quarter sable, three maidens' heads couped two and one, with 
the crest of a wolf passant,' no longer a lion rampant gardant. 
There must have been some reason for this singular pheno- 
menon, and it is said that the wolf crest and maidens' heads 
belonged to a family called de Wolveley, who once owned the 
manor of Prestwich next to that of Clifton.^ Now, in the 
year 1360, Margaret, daughter of Thomas de Prestwich, the 
son of Alice de Wolveley (which Alice had been heiress of this 
manor), took the veil at the age of fifteen in the convent of 
Seaton in Cumberland. Margaret had no brother, and, but 
for being a nun, would have been co-heiress with her sister 
of Prestwich manor and two other manors. Her sister Agnes 
died married, but without children, in 1362. Before this, 
Margaret had eloped from the convent at the age of less 
than seventeen, and had married Robert de Holland. Some 
years later her father died, and on the ground that the escaped 
Margaret was a professed nun, and so could not inherit, the 
manors were transferred to her cousin, Roger de Langley, 
then a minor, whose mother was a maternal granddaughter 
of the original heiress, Alice de Wolveley. 

Robert Holland by no means accepted the succession 
of the boy, Roger de Langley. He seems at first to have 
made some arrangement with Sir Thomas Molyneux, t]ie 
agent of the great over-lord, the Duke of Lancaster, for, 

^ The distinguished local historian, Mr. W. Langton, in the Lancashire 
Inquisitions (vol. 99 of the Chetham Society Papers, p. 135) discussed all this, and 
is inclined to accept the conjecture. See also Victorian History of Lancashire, 
V. 77. 


by a letter from the Savoy Palace dated July 10, 1372, the 
Duke ordered Molyneux, notwithstanding any demise or 
lease of the manor of Prestwich made by him to Robert 
de Holland, to seize the manor and demise and let it to 
other persons than the said Robert and his wife. But in 
1375 Robert de Holland assembled a troop of armed men 
and ' vi et armis contra pacem, etc.,' took possession of 
the manor. The Duke of Lancaster was fiscally interested 
because he was entitled to the profits of wardship during 
a minority, but apparently Holland kept possession for 
twenty years. 

The case was at last tried before Mr. Justice Pynchbeck 
and his colleagues at the Lancaster Assizes in 1394. It was 
proved that Margaret, daughter of Thomas de Prestwich, 
son of Alice de Wolveley, was, before her marriage, ' a nun 
and professed in the House of the nuns of Seaton.' It was 
also proved that she had made her vows at the rational 
age of fifteen, ' on the morrow of St. Katherine the Virgin 
and Martyr, a.d. 1360, in the presence of Sir John Cragge, 
the Prior of the Abbey of Furness,' and several others named 
in the proceedings, and that ' the said Margaret on the said 
day confessed before the said persons that she was not 
coerced or compelled, but voluntarily entered the Order 
of St. Benedict in the said House.' On this point the case 
turned, for a nun, who of free will and at an age of dis- 
cretion had taken vows, was disqualified for inheritance of 
land even if she came out of the convent and returned to 
lay life, unless she had a dispensation from Rome. Judg- 
ment was accordingly entered for the Duke of Lancaster 
in respect of the profits, but notwithstanding this decision, 
the Hollands asserted their claim some years longer. Very 
likely they obtained support from their southern cousins, 
the Earls of Kent and Huntingdon, then so powerful, and 
so closely allied with the Duke of Lancaster and King 


Richard. In 1395 the feoffees of Robert de Holland and 
Margaret, his wife, made a deed of settlement dealing with 
Prestwich Manor as though it were indubitably family 
property. The trusts were to hold for Robert de Holland 
for life, and after his death for his son Peter and his 
issue, with remainders to the younger sons and daughters, 
Nicholas, John, Edmund, Marion, Catharine, and Alice. 

At the end of 1401, the southern Hollands having tragic- 
ally fallen, Robert de Holland reluctantly released to Robert 
de Langley (the son of the whilom minor Roger) all his 
claim upon Prestwich, and two other manors, and in 1416 
his son Peter Holland agreed to give up his title deeds, 
and in 1418 released his claim * to his manors ' to trustees 
for the Langleys. But peace was not re-established between 
Hollands and Langleys except after active war, for in May 
1402 the King granted pardon to Robert de Langley, who 
was then twenty-four, for having captured and detained 
Robert de Holland. The latter had at various times in- 
vaded the Manor of Prestwich, and carried away some cattle 
and goods of Langley and his tenants into Cheshire,^ not 
restoring them without payment. He had also come by 
night and carried some of Langley's cattle as far as Glossop 
(in Derbyshire), and being pursued, he entered the house of 
Master Wagstaffe, who must have been much annoyed, and 
defied Robert de Langley, wounding one of his servants with 
an arrow. The brother of the wounded man threw fire into 
the house, and Holland had to surrender, and was taken into 
Lancashire.^ He had then already been outlawed for treason, 
probably in connection with the Holland movement of 1400. 

The suggestion, to recapitulate, made by more than one 
student of local history, is that in order to assert the more 

1 Cheshire was a convenient place into which to drive cattle stolen in Lanca- 
shire, or vice versa, because the two counties were under entirely different juris- 
dictions, one reason why they were both lawless. 

* Victorian County History of Lancashire, vol. v., quoting Agecroft docuaionts. 



ostentatiously his claim to the Wolveley inheritance during 
this conflict of thirty years, Robert de Holland, on the same 
principle as that on which the Kings of England assumed 
the Frencti royal lilies, carved up the arms and crest of 
Wolveley, which the herald saw somewhere at Clifton in 
1533. There was indeed no Otho among the children of 
Robert and Margaret, but the second Otho Holland, who 
owned Clifton about 1440, may have easily been their grand- 
son, perhaps a son of the Peter named in the settlement 
of 1395. If this violent Robert de Holland were not the 
lord of Clifton, it does not appear who else he can have been, 
living at that time in the immediate vicinity of Prestwich. 
He may, on the whole, be fairly claimed, and not without pride, 
on account of his evidently strong and virile character, as a 
Holland of Clifton. There is certainly something in the style 
of these northern local proceedings, a Holland ' touch,' akin 
to the methods by which his cousin at two or three removes, 
John, Earl of Huntingdon, was in the same years endeavouring 
to promote the interests of the southern branch of the family. 

After these troubles, the owners of Clifton, holding 
firmly to their manor and hall, proceeded obscurely on 
their way down history. Amid the darkness, the Lancashire 
Court records illuminate the fact that, one day in the year 
1440, Ralph, son of Otho Holland of Clifton Hall, trespassed, 
with others, in the woods of Sir John Pilkington and took 
therefrom three hawks, valued at £20. Did Ralph redeem 
his woodland crime by fighting on the Lancastrian side at 
Towton Field in the Wars of the Roses, under the banner 
of his distant cousin, Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter ? 
A novelist would be entitled to make him do so, but there 
is no record. 

The pedigree of these Clifton Hollands can only, before 
the reign of Henry VIII, be defectively made out, and their 
marriages till then are mostly obscure, but early in the 


sixteenth century more light is thrown by two inquisitions 
post mortem : one made in 1506, which shows the descent 
for the two previous generations, and the second at the 
death, in 1523, of WilHam Holland, then owner of Clifton. 
This William had married Alice Orskell Werden. The 
Werdens were a good old Lancashire family, some of 
whom, later, were Catholic Royalists in the Civil War. 
William Holland, in 1517, made a settlement in order to 
secure a dowry for his wife, and make provision for his 
younger sons and daughters. Richard Holland of Denton, 
and Nicholas Holland of Deane Hall, were two of the 
trustees of the settlement. William Holland died in 1523, 
and his eldest son, Thomas, then aged sixteen, succeeded to 
the Manor and Hall of Clifton. There were five younger 
sons and several daughters. The second son was named 
John and the sixth son William. The eldest son, Thomas 
Holland, married Ellen, daughter of Sir Robert Langley 
of Agecroft, a fine old hall which still exists near Manchester. 
This was the family with which Robert Holland waged so 
long a quarrel in the fourteenth century. 

Thomas Holland died in 1565, leaving Ellen a widow 
with four children. His youngest and sixth brother, William 
Holland, who was born about 1517, was executor of his 
will, and was ancestor of the Hollands of Rhodes, Mobberley, 
Sandlebridge, and of the Viscounts Knutsford. 

We might have possessed rather fuller details about 
this family had not Thomas Holland thoughtlessly been 
away when the Heralds called one day at Clifton in the 
Lancashire Visitation of 1533. The Heralds, in consequence, 
made the barren note, ' Holland of Clifton was not at howme,' 
and merely recorded arms which no doubt they saw carved 
somewhere, and entered no pedigree. 

The ' Lancaster Pleadings ' (vol. xlix) contains a Bill 
addressed to Sir Ambrose Cave, as Chancellor of the Duchy 


of Lancaster, by Ellen Holland, widow of Thomas Holland, 
and William, Robert, and Thomas, and Ellinor Holland, 
children of the said Thomas v. William Langley, clerk, 
Parson of Prestwich. The complaint was that ' the said 
Thomas Holland, the father, left goods to the value of 
three hundred marks. The defendant was his trustee, being 
his wife's brother. He undertook to provide the said 
Thomas and his family with board and lodging during his 
own lifetime at the Parsonage of Prestwich ; in consideration 
whereof, the defendant enjoyed all the goods of the said 
Thomas. Ever since Thomas' death, the defendant has 
refused these obligations. He has also driven out of the 
parsonage house his nephew and niece, Thomas and Ellinor, 
when they came to seek succour at the parsonage.' 

This William Langley, Rector of Prestwich, was a queer 
and quarrelsome priest, always engaged in a number of 
lawsuits, about church property, with his neighbours. He 
was instituted in 1552, in the ultra-reforming reign of 
Edward VI, but conformed to the old religion during Mary's 
reign, and again to the new arrangements at the beginning 
of Elizabeth's. But presently he turned recusant, about 
the time he so maltreated the Holland children, and refused 
to attend his own parish church, and was finally deprived 
of the living in 1569. Prestwich was far too much of a 
Langley family living ; it was held continuously by Langleys 
from 1417 to I6IO.1 

From this sad case of a cruel, though reverend, uncle, 
it seems that the Hollands of Clifton were in financial diffi- 
culties in the reign of Elizabeth, but they did not lose their 
social position as lords of a manor. The Derby household 
books record a visit to Lord Derby by ' Mr. Holland of 

^ One of his successors, as rector in the first half of the nineteenth century, was 
the Rev. John Booker, a most worthy antiquary, who wrote Memorials of Prestwich 
Church, &c., and contributed much to the Chetham Society Papers. 


Clifton,' who came to stay at Lathom on February 10, 1588. 
The three sons of Thomas Holland died without surviving 
issue, and the manor then passed to their sister Eleanor, 
married to Ralph Slade. On her death without issue in 
1613, the property reverted to a cousin, Thomas Holland, a 
grandson of John Holland, the second son of the William 
Holland who died in 1523. This Thomas Holland still 
owned the estate at the time of the Civil War. He was a 
Royalist ; and the estates were sequestrated by Parliament 
for his own delinquencies, and more especially those of his 
son William, who had applied for a commission in the 
King's army, had fought as a defender of Wigan, when 
Colonel Richard Holland of Denton captured that town, 
and had also served in the garrison of Lathom House, and 
in other places. 

The Hollands never recovered from this sequestration 
disaster, and had at last to sell their house, Clifton Hall, 
which in 1652 came into possession of the Gaskell family ; 
but they retained for a brief space longer the manor and 
some land. William Holland, the last in the male descent, 
who died in 1660, had no son, but a daughter Elizabeth. 
Before 1671 she had married Humphrey Trafford, and thus 
the Manor of Clifton, which Marjory de Trafford had brought 
in Edward Ill's reign to the Hollands, was brought back 
over three hundred years later by Elizabeth Holland to 
the Traffords, now called again ' de Trafford.' These 
Traffords are one of the oldest Lancashire families that 
have a continuous recorded history. The grandfather 
of Humphrey Trafford was a strong Protestant and per- 
secutor of recusants. His son, Humphrey's father. Sir 
Cecil Trafford, was reconciled to the Church of Rome in 
his youth about 1616, and ever after that the family 
adhered to that Church down to the present day. Sir Cecil 
died very old in 1673, and was succeeded in possession of the 


estates by Humphrey, who had married EHzabeth Holland. 
Elizabeth died, and Humphrey Trafford married again ; 
his descendants spring from his second wife. Humphrey 
Trafford was in trouble in 1694, being implicated in a 
Lancashire Jacobite plot of that year, and he died at an 
advanced age in 1716. This marriage into a Catholic family 
makes it certain — unless (which is not very likely) Elizabeth 
was an individual convert — that the latest Hollands of Clifton 
were, like the Hollands of Sutton, not only Royalists but 
Catholics, though perhaps they may have thought it well, 
living as they did close to Protestant Manchester, to conceal 
the fact as much as possible. 

It appears that the manor and lands of Clifton were 
mortgaged in 1685, and eventually were sold, so that their 
re-occupation by the Trafford family did not last long. 
Probably they were in financial difficulties at the time ; but 
they would have done better to keep Clifton until the develop- 
ment of estates round Manchester in the nineteenth century. 

While the elder line of the descendants from the William 
Holland of Clifton, who married Alice Werden and died 
in 1523, thus became extinct, a cadet branch continued 
to exist in a very modest but healthy and prolific way. 

vVilliam Holland was sixth son of the William Holland 
owner of Clifton Manor, who died in 1523, and, since his 
eldest brother, Thomas, was born in 1507, and there were also 
sisters, he was probably himself not born earlier than 1517. 
He was in 1565 executor of the will of his eldest brother, 
Thomas, and he appears two years later in the pedigree 
given in Flower's Visitation.^ He married a Miss Parr who 

^ Mr. William F. Irvine, in his book called The Family of Holland of Mohberley 
and Knutsford, privately printed in 1902, denied the fact, previously accepted by 
all good authorities, that the William Holland who married Miss Parr of Rhodes was 
son of William Holland of Clifton, who married Miss Werden and died in 1523. 
I have given in an Appendijc reasons showing that Mr. Irvine was in error on 
this point. 



was co-heiress, together with a sister who had married John 
Foxe, of an ancient gentleman's estate called Rhodes, close 
to Clifton Hall. This William Holland's descendants in the 
elder line owned Rhodes till late in the seventeenth century. 


William Holland = Anne, d. of Ralph 

of Chorlton Row, 
and then of Mob- 
berley ; 6. 1605, m. 
1624, d. 1654. 

Bold of Ashton- 

John Holland = Hannah, d. of 
of Mobberley; Thomas Nor- 
b. 1631, m. 1655, bury of Over 
d. 1704. Alderley. 

John Holland = Mary Deane 
of Mobborley ; i of Alderley. 
6. 1656, OT. 1684, | 
d. 1712. ! 

Six other sons and 
four daughters. 

Six other sons and 
one daughter. 

John Holland = Mary, d. of Peter 

of Mobberley ; 
b. 1690, m. 1717, 
d. 1770. 

Cblthurst of Sandle- 
bridge in Little War- 
ford, Cheshire. 

Four other sons and 
four daughters. 

Peter Holland = Margaret 

of Mobberley ; 
b: 1722, d. 1761. 


Samuel Holland, = Anne. d. of 
4th son, of Sandle- [ Peter Swin- 
bridge; 6. 1734, ton of 

m. 1763, d. 1816. I Knutsford. 

Two other 
sons and six 

John Holland = 
of Mobberley ; ] 
d. 1835. I 

, d. of- 

Hollands of 
&c. (keenest 

Robert Holland = , d. of- 

of Mobberley. He 
sold the property 
about 1887. 

The Prestwich parish registers show that this William 
Holland died in 1603, at about the age of eighty-five, and 
that the second William Holland of Rhodes, his eldest 


son, died in 1614, and was succeeded there by his son, John. 
A younger son of the first-named William — namely, Edward 
Holland — bought a house and land at Chorlton, close to 
Manchester and five or six miles from Rhodes and Clifton, 
and rather late in life married, about 1603 or 1604, Ellen 
Hulme of Hey ton. This Edward's only son, William Holland, 
was born in 1605, and in 1624 married Anne, daughter of 
Ralph Bold of Ashton-under-Lyne. About that time, his 
father, Edward, died and William inherited the Chorlton 
property. This he eventually sold, and bought, in 1650, 
four years before his death, a property at Mobberley in 
Cheshire, about fifteen miles from Manchester, near Knuts- 
ford. This was a small estate of 120 acres lying round a 
house called Dam Head. Here his descendants in the 
elder line lived on the land very quietly for a period of 
237 years until the year 1887. The property was then sold 
:o Lord Egerton of Tatton, and is now a farm of the present 

The clash of arms has often been heard in the pages 
of this book. It never disturbed the Hollands of Mobberley 
save once, when, in 1745, the Highland Army passed within 
five miles of them on the road from Manchester to Derby. 
In a still extant diary of Mrs. John Holland, of that date, 
are the following entries : 

' Nov. 24, 1745. The week past has been attended 
with a great deal of bad tideings from our armies, many 
in great alarm and consternation.' 

' November, ye last day. Every day brings fresh alarms, 
our Rebel enemies drawing nearer and nearer ; six beside 
our own family come for shelter.' 

* December ye 8. Ye week past we had some intervall 
from our fears. After many abuses in Maxfild [Maccles- 
field] they went to Leek, pressed several to go with them, 
from there to Ashburn, from there to Derby. A little number 


From a portrait made about 1840 


behind meeting with ye King's forces, were frightened back 
to Ashburn, Leek, and poor Maxfild again. On Saturday- 
night they begun to come in ; all the country alarmed 
again with great fear of them, one and twenty came this 
day by the Hall and Mill and made towards Altringham ; 
gave no disturbance to this neighbourhood.' 

'April 26, 1746. We have joyful news from Scotland 
that the Rebels are defeated by the Duke on the 16th of 
this instant. We have had great outward rejoicings.' 

John Holland, who died in 1770, husband of this lady, 
had a fourth son, named Samuel, who inherited from a 
maternal uncle a property of some three hundred acres, 
called Sandlebridge, about three miles from Knutsford. 
Samuel Holland married Anne, daughter of Peter Swinton 
of Knutsford. Their eldest son, Peter Holland, inherited 
Sandlebridge, and practised as a doctor at Knutsford. He 
died in 1855, and Sandlebridge passed to his eldest son, 
Sir Henry Holland. 

The maternal grandmother of this Henry Holland was 
Catherine, a sister of Josiah Wedgwood, the famous potter of 
Etruria in Staffordshire ; so that he was, via the Wedgwoods, 
a second cousin of the great Charles Darwin, and related 
to all the amiable and lively Wedgwood clan. Henry 
Holland was born October 27, 1788. He went to London 
as a young physician, and there during his long professional 
career had a practice in the high social and political sphere, 
and was also a well-known man in society, a writer, and 
traveller. He was consulting physician to six prime ministers, 
including George Canning and Sir Robert Peel, and to Queen 
Victoria, and knew every one in the high political, pro- 
fessional, and literary world of his time. His name appears 
in many memoirs as a guest in the best society. He was 
President of the Royal Society, and of the College of 
Physicians. Probably none of his lineal ancestors had ever 

o m 

T3 a 


p ca o "o ..»^ 

S 5Q ja'B M^ CD 















02 1-1 --^ 

•? O 00 o 

11 i^^ 

§ Ip-Sco 

•-S o 

O t4 a> 



C^P3 « 

e6 ID 

- Sr^a 

S SiD 

o a 

O T3 

o cso 

O (3 



r: CO 


^:2 i 


a o 



O 03 

O t3 

. o 

T3 O 

;^ S 

r " 
-t^ •> 

" 00 

c3 -O CO 
O "'00 


c ^ eo 


0) r^ 

--0 00 


^ K CO 2 
o 00 ^ 

^,00 •> a 

o fh H 











,S a 



>N 9} 


>2 > f^ 
c3 « cS 



S ca o 

—I f-l t^ 
-d S © 6C 


' CI !— I 

be »-i — < 
cS O cS t> ^ 

"^ -^ fc( a; 

o <o 

■ T '-I 

13 fc< 
e cs 

'S tT 

03 "U 
BO © 
C fl 

•> ° 
^ T3 

P s 

° 3 




• r. 




















03 in 

3 3 
d d 

o a 


o e8 



. . 3 

13 -C 



n: © 

IS « 

* '^ 

■ o § 
5 o 


^ 00 


•« -M :s . .1 

"^ 3 © t^ . 



-'-' rd 

■* d 
•M b 



f-( «4-l 

o3 O 


Wo CO 03 
kT © 
i>- © 

,5 © 

© la 

-^^ i 


. o 

" « _ 


10 TJ a 

^ 2=3 

"^ ..5m 



left England, unless some Holland of Clifton was in the 
Wars in France, and they had certainly rarely strayed from 
their flat green fields in Lancashire and Cheshire. Sir 
Henry Holland made up for this by travelling every year 
of his life, from the time he was twenty until he was eighty- 
five — in which year of his age he went first to Moscow and 
then to Rome, and died a week after his return to his London 
home in Brook Street on his eighty-sixth birthday, October 
27, 1873. He was in the Spanish Peninsula in 1812, while 
Wellington was carrying on the War, and in North America 
for a month or two in 1863, in the Civil War, with a visit to 
General Grant's headquarters, having an insatiable curiosity 
about men and things. Perhaps it was the banked-up 
curiosity of his provincial ancestors ! He left record of 
himself in a very cautiously composed * Book of Recollections,' 
and there is also an account of him in the ' Dictionary of 
National Biography,' so that more need not be said here. 
He was made a baronet in 1853. He married, first, Emma, 
a fair and charming daughter of James Caldwell of Linley 
Wood in Staffordshire, and, secondly, Saba, daughter of the 
famous Canon, Sydney Smith. 

Two uncles of Sir Henry Holland, sons of Samuel of 
Sandlebridge and younger brothers of Peter Holland, also 
attained distinction in their own lines. ^ One of them, the 
j^ounger, Swinton Holland, became a partner in the great 
House of Baring. His eldest son, Edward Holland, at one 
time Liberal M.P. for East Worcestershire, owned the 
estate of Dumbleton in Gloucestershire. Among this 
Edward's sons were Frederick Holland, Vicar of Evesham, 
and Admiral Swinton Holland. Robert Martin-Holland, 
C.B., of Martin's Bank, Lombard Street, and Gloucestershire, 
is a grandson of Edward of Dumbleton, and son of Frederick 
of Evesham, and he has himself six sons. The sixth son of 

1 For their descendants see pedigrees in Appendix I. 


Swinton Holland was George Holland, who married Dorothy, 
daughter of Lord Gifford, and became the father of Canon 
Henry Scott Holland, and of other children. 

The other brother of Peter Holland, named Samuel, 
established a large financial and commercial business in 
connection with Liverpool and South America, and from 
him descends a numerous race settled in Lancashire, Wales, 
and the South. Sir Arthur Holland is one of them. He 
has five living sons. 

A sister of Peter Holland, Elizabeth, married William 
Stevenson ; and her daughter, also named Elizabeth, who 
married the Rev. William Gaskell, was the excellent authoress. 
Elizabeth Stevenson was born in 1810, and was mainly 
brought up at Knutsford, the model of the town in her 
novels, ' Cranford,' and ' Wives and Daughters,' and her 
uncle. Dr. Peter Holland, and his family can be recognised 
among the characters in her stories.^ She married in 1832, 
and died in 1865. 

Sir Henry Holland's success in London, and that in 
the commercial and financial world of his uncles Swinton 
and Samuel, placed this family upon a new, or restored, 
social basis. The Hollands never were so obscure, before or 
since, as in the eighteenth century. They had lived at Mob- 
berley in a quiet way, much as substantial yeomen, farming 
their own land — their younger sons becoming nonconformist 
ministers, or provincial lawyers, or the like. They were, 
however, in virtue of their descent from a manorial family, 
described as ' gentlemen ' in legal documents, and they steadily 
used on their seals the old Upholland crest of the lion rampant 
grasping a fleur de lys, which was borne by Sir Robert de 
Holland, in 1307, on his banner at the Stepney tournament. 

^ The two Misses Browning in Wives and Daughters are the images of two. 
old daughters of Peter HolJand, who lived at Knutsford, and the two old sisters 
in Cranford have alEo a strong resemblance. 


From a miniature done in Edinburgh by James Thomson, just before she was married, 

"in 1832 


Like Colonel Richard Holland of Denton, but unlike 
the Hollands of Sutton and the main line of Clifton, the 
Hollands who settled at Mobberley were Presbyterians 
during the Commonwealth and after the Restoration. But 
Presbyterianism never flourished in England as it did in 
Scotland. Eventually, like most English Presbyterians, 
they became Unitarians, and so continued until the nine- 
teenth century, when most of their descendants gradually 
reverted to the Church of England. One or two of them 
even became distinguished members of the Anglican clergy 
— such as the late Canon Francis Holland of Canterbury 
and Canon Henry Scott Holland, formerly of St. Paul's 
and now of Christ Church, Oxford, and Regius Professor 
of Divinity. 

While they lived in Lancashire and Cheshire these 
Hollands married into families of the same kind of middle- 
class social standing and religion, never going for wives 
beyond the borders of those counties, until Peter Holland 
went as far as Staffordshire for that purpose. They led 
unemotional and unadventurous, virtuous and temperate 
lives, which both earlier and later Hollands would have 
thought intolerably dull, and they almost invariably in 
consequence had large families and attained to advanced 
ages. The late Lord Knutsford, who died at eighty-eight, 
in 1914, was the fifth in lineal succession of men who passed 
the eightieth year, such was the stored-up and yet un- 
expended vitality of the race. 

On Sir Henry Holland's death in 1873, the estate of 
Sandlebridge, which he had doubled in extent by purchasing 
adjoining land, descended, together with the baronetcy, 
to his eldest son, Henry Thurstan Holland.^ This son was 
born in 1825, and educated at Harrow and Trinity College, 

^ The house and land at Sandlebridge were a few years ago sold to the City of 
Manchester for the purpose of some melancholy Institution. 


Cambridge. He was first at the Bar, and then held a high 
post in the Colonial Office. He married, first, Elizabeth, 
daughter of Nathaniel Hibbert of Munden House in Hert- 
fordshire, and, by her mother, a granddaughter of the above- 
mentioned Sydney Smith, by whom he had three children ; 
and, secondly, Margaret, daughter of Sir Charles Trevelyan, 
Baronet, and niece of Lord Macaulay, by whom he had four 
children. After his father's death, he left the Colonial Office 
and entered the House of Commons as a supporter of 
Lord Beaconsfield's administration. He became Financial 
Secretary to the Treasury in Lord Salisbury's short govern- 
ment in 1885 and, in the latter part of 1886, in his next 
administration, was Vice-President of the Council for Educa- 
tion. In the ministerial changes at the beginning of 1887, 
caused by the revolt of Lord Randolph Churchill against Lord 
Salisbury, Sir Henry Thurstan Holland became Secretary of 
State for the Colonies, and held that great office until the 
Unionist Government went out of power in 1892. He had 
the honour of presiding over the first Colonial Conference, 
held in 1887 in connection with Queen Victoria's Jubilee, 
He was raised to the House of Lords as Baron Knutsford 
in 1888, and advanced to be Viscount in 1895. Lord 
Knutsford owed his success to restless industry combined 
with charm of manner and goodness of heart. He died in 
1914, and his eldest son, Sydney George Holland, who 
married Lady Mary Ashburnham, daughter of the fourth 
Earl of Ashburnham, succeeded to the peerage, which he 
now holds with distinction. 

The younger son of Sir Henry Holland was Francis James 
Holland. He was at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, 
and then took Orders. He first held the living of St. 
Dunstan's, Canterbury ; was then for twenty years incumbent 
of Quebec Chapel in London, and for the last twenty-five 
years of his life was a Canon of Canterbury Cathedral. He 


also was chaplain to Queen Victoria and to King Edward VII. 
He was certainly one of the best of all his race. Like his 
father he was a great traveller, and died at Sorrento in Italy, 
when he was just seventy -nine, on his way back from a 
journey in North Africa, in the year 1907. After a solemn 
service in Canterbury Cathedral he was buried at Godmers- 
ham in Kent. His wife was Mary Sibylla, daughter of 
Alfred Lyall, rector of Harbledown in Kent, and sister of 
the distinguished Anglo-Indians, Sir Alfred and Sir James 
Lyall. He left sons and grandsons now living. 

One of the sisters of the first Viscount Knutsford and 
Francis Holland was Emily, renowned for her beauty and 
intelligence in early Victorian days, and she was living till 
the year 1908. She married Charles Buxton, M.P., of Fox 
Warren in Surrey, and one of her sons is Sydney Charles, 
from 1905 to 1914 a member of the Liberal Cabinet, and 
now first Viscount Buxton, and Governor-General of South 

One of Sir Henry Holland's daughters by his second 
marriage was Caroline, who inherited much of the cheerful 
and indomitable vigour of her maternal grandfather, Sydney 
Smith, and was well known in London for her social and 
philanthropic energies, until her death in 1909. 


Piers (or Peter) Hollaud of Oouway.- 

■William Holland 
of Conway. 

Thomas B.o]la.n&=JsabeUa, d.of William 
of Conway, I Talbot. 

William Hollands (Jrac* Conuiai/ Oatherine=(1477) Jamet Atherton. 
of Conway. I of Bodrydclan. 

Humphrey Holland —Elizabeth, d. of 

of Conway ; d. 1528. I 

Hugh Holland = £'/i(;n, d. and heiress of 
of Conway. \ Sir Richard Bulkeley. 

Hugh HoUand=/ane, d. of Hugh Conway of 
of Conway ; d. I Bryneui-in, and Ellen, d. of 

1584. I Sir W. Griffith of I'mrhyn. 

Edward Holland =/M(it7A Johnson 

of Conway 


of Beaumaris. 

Kobert 'KoVi&nd.= Jane. d. of Robert 
M. A,., Rector of I Meylir of Haver- 
Walwyns Castle, fordwest. 

&c. ; d. 1622. 

Five other 



William Holland =Ca(ft«r?nf, d. of William 
of Oonway, d. 1638. I Olyn of Lliar. 

Margaret Holland = TriZZjajn Williams. 

Holland Williams =Jane, d. of Edward 
of Conway. I Edwards. 

Edward ' Holland ' = Elizabeth, d. of 
of Oonway ; assumed I Owen Anwyl. 
name of ' Holland ' ; | 
d. 1734. I 

Nicholas Holland = 
Vicar of Marloes. I 


Nicholas Holland = Dorothy Laugharne 
of Walwyns Castle \and three other 
and Haverfordwest; | wives. 

d. 1718 1 

Rice Hollaud = , 

d. early. I 

Nicholas Hollaud - 

of Walwyns Castle, 

and Haverfordwest ; 

d. 1720. 

d. of of , 


Sarah, d. of ... Stcallow 
of Eastham. 

Jane 'Holland' = Robert Williams. 
(heiress) ; d. 1780. I 

Hugh Williams,=Mary, d. of H. Flay ford. 
M.A., of Conway ; 
d. 1809. 

Jane Silence Williams- Sir David Erskine, Bart., 
(heiress) ; d. 1886. j of Cambo, Fife. 

Nicholas HoUand, = /a7W, d. of Edward 

Ikr.A.,Vicar of Muck- 
ing and Rector of 
Stifford ; d. 1771. 

Clarke, barrister. 

Samuel Holland, = Frances, d. of Lord 
M.A., M.D., Rector j Chancellor Erskine. 
of Poyniugs, &c. ; 
d. 1857. 

Thomas Agar '^ Madalena, d. of 

M.A., Rector of Poyn- Major P. Stewart. 

iugs ; d. 1888. 

Sir Thomas Erskine, Bart.=Zaida David Holland Etskine= Augusta 

1 Ffolliolt. I Sloddart. 

(See Baronetage.) 

Three sons. 

r Thomas = (l) Louise 

Stewart = (1) Mary 

Philip = Constance 


= Catherine, 



Delessert ; 


Mossop ; 




d. of Lumb 



(2) Ellen 


(2) Emily 



Slocks, R.A. 



















■ This pedigree ia compiled by Sir Thomas Erskine Holland, K.C. A fuller pedigree by the same is printed in 

the ' Archreologia Oambrensis,' series 3, vol. 12, with authorities. 
' In the service of Henry IV, believed to be fifth in descent from Alan, a brother of Robert, first Lord Holland. 



I. — The Conway Family 

' The highest tides have their falls and ebbs, and, after great tempests and 
darkest days, the sun shineth.' — Rev. Robert Holland, Dedication to the 
' Holie Historic.' 

A BRANCH of the Hollands, long settled at Conway in Wales, 
and still continued, in the male line, in England, is said by 
some good authorities to descend from Alan Holland, a son 
of Robert Holland of UphoUand and a brother of Robert, 
the first Lord Holland, who was beheaded at Henley, in 
1328. This Alan is stated to have had a son named John, 
who was the great-grandfather of Peter, or Piers, Holland 
of Conway. From this Peter the descent of the family 
to the present day, shown in the pedigree herewith, is clear 
and certain. Peter himself served in the household of 
King Henry IV. 

The ancestor of these Hollands came, it appears, to 
Conway, to which English colonists had been brought, in the 
first instance, by Edward I, after his conquest of the wild 
Celtic country. These settlers were described in Latin as 
' Advenae.' R. Williams, in his ' History of Conway ' 
(1835, p. 43), says : ' The town had obtained the great 
privileges mentioned above from Edward I. In order 
that he might have a body of Englishmen, besides the 
garrisons of his castles, to maintain his power in Wales, all 

305 X 


that held office in his towns of Aberconway, Caernarvon, 
and Beaumaris were exclusively English.' And further 
on, he says : ' The exclusive advantages enjoyed by English- 
men, from the time of the first Edward for several centuries, 
brought here a great number of adventurers, and the names 
of almost all the inhabitants were extraneous : such were the 
Hookes, Stodarts, Actons, . . . Hollands, &c. The last who 
bore any of these names was Owen Holland of Plas-isav, Esq., 
who died in 1795 . . . and even within the last two centuries 
Sir John Wynne of Gwydir mentions that they were called 
*' the lawyers of Carnarvon, the merchands of Beaumaris, 
and the gentlemen of Conway." ' 

Besides their town house, called Plas-isav, these Hollands 
owned most of Conway and much property in the neighbour- 
hood, in particular Bodlondeb and Marie, holding also the 
Castle, by tenure of a dish of fish to Lord Hertford when he 
passed through. The ferry belonged to them, and they are 
said to have received a large sum in compensation when Con- 
way Bridge was built. 

The arms of this family are ' azure seme de fleurs de lys, 
a lion ramp, gard, arg.* Crest : * out of a flame ppr. an 
arm issuant habited in a close sleeve sa the fist ppr. 
holding a lion's gamb. barwise erased or the talons to the 
sinister side.' ^ Their motto, at least as early as the reign of 
Elizabeth, was Fiat Pax, Floreat Justitia, and is so still. 

An interesting deed exists, dated 17 Edward IV (1477), 
whereby * Thomas de Holond ' settled his property at Conway 
on his son William and his daughter Catherine, wife of 
James Atherton, successively in tail, with ultimate remainder 
to the burgesses of the town ' for the maintenance of a fit 
and proper priest to say masses in Conway Church for the 
salvation of the soul of the said Thomas de Holond and of 

^ This crest is said by some to have been borne by the Hollands before the 
family waa ennobled. (Harl. MS. 2076, f. 26.) 


Isabella, his beloved wife, and of his ancestors, relatives, 
and heirs, as the burgesses shall answer for it before the most 
high Judge in the Day of Judgement.' 

In the church at Conway there are a great many monu- 
ments of the family. The inscription on one of these runs 
as follows : ' Edward Holland, Armiger, posuit hoc memoriale 
Hollandorum ad requisitionem Hugonis Holland, Arm., 
patris sui, paulo ante obitum, qui obiit 13 die Maii, A" 
D'ni, 1584.' The Edward who thus commemorated his 
father was himself commemorated, on his death in 1601, 
in another Latin inscription in the same church, by his own 
son, William. 

This son, William Holland, of Conway, married Catherine, 
daughter of William Glynn, of Lliar, and with him ended 
the male succession of this elder line. He had, however, 
a daughter and heiress, Margaret, who married William 
Williams. Their son was christened Holland, and his 
children assumed the surname of ' Holland,' but the male 
descent of this family again came to an end in the following 
generation, on the death of Owen Holland, of Plas-isav, 
Conway, in 1795. He died without issue, and the property 
passed eventually to the younger son of his sister Jane, 
who had also married a Williams, Robert Williams, owner 
of the charming estate of Pwllycrochon. This son, the Rev. 
Hugh Williams, of Conway and Pwllycrochon, left a daughter 
and heiress, Jane Silence Williams, who, in 1819, married 
Sir David Erskine, of Cambo, Fife, the great-grandfather 
of the present baronet of that name. The Welsh property 
passed by this marriage to the Cambo family, and was sold 
by them in 1865 for about £212,000. The Conway family 
has, however, been continued in the male descent, to the 
present time. 

Edward Holland, of Conway, who erected the monument 
in the reign of Elizabeth, had a younger brother, Robert, who 


married Joan, daughter of Robert Meylir and of Catherine, 
heiress of Howell ap Rees Vawr, of Haverfordwest, in 
the County of Pembroke. Robert Holland was a very 
strongly Protestant clergyman, M.A., of Jesus College, Cam- 
bridge, and Rector of Prendergast, holding afterwards two 
other Crown livings in Pembrokeshire. Some account of 
him, as also of his brother Henry, M.A., ultimately 
Vicar of St. Bride's, Fleet Street, is given in the ' Dic- 
tionary of National Biography.' Robert published in 1594 
a little book entitled ' The Holie Historic of our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ's Nativitie, etc., gathered into English 
Meeter, and published to withdraw vaine wits from all 
unsauerie and wicked rimes and fables, to some love and 
liking of spirituall songs and holy Scriptures.' He remarks 
in the same preface that the ' Booke of God delivereth the 
receiver from the poisoned cup of that great Circe, the 
Bishop of Rome, which hath infected so many thousand, and 
turned them into swine ' ; but, none the less, he says, in 
those days many bestowed ' months and years ' on reading 
romances, ' but scarce bestow one minute on the Bible, 
albeit the booke of God.' The Dedication and Address 
to the Reader are followed by twenty-eight lines of com- 
mendatory verses by H. Smartus, Oxoniensis, ending : 

' Ergo manent Hollande tibi coelestia serta 

Carpere, namque Theon nullus obesse queat.* 

Two other poets, John Canon and John Pine, contribute 
laudatory verses in English. 

Robert wrote also three books in Welsh, one of them 
designed to discourage recourse to so-called witches. His 
• Epistle Dedicatory ' to King James I, prefixed to a genealogy 
of that monarch, ' gathered by George Owen Harry, Parson 
of Whitchurch, at the request of Mr. Robert Holland,' 
printed in 1604, is so apposite to family history of the present 


kind that it must be quoted here, especially since it lacks 
neither style nor dignity. 

' It is the desire of immortality in every man's brest, 
which inforceth all men by all meanes to propagate their 
names to posterity, so as it may never die (if it were possible). 
Hence it is that some erect magnificent monuments for their 
Tombs . . . that other some desire to leave an heire of their 
name, whom they endow with great livelihood, in whose 
descent they think still to live. Hence is it that other 
derive the memorie of their names backward from antiquitie 
as far as they can : who, as they wish they might draw their 
first stemm from all beginnings, so do they desire to pro- 
pagate their memorie without ende. 

' Thus the restless soul, knowing her own worth and 
Immortality, seekes these by-pathes to finde out her own 
Pedigree, which though it errs in the object, by not aspiring 
to heaven, whence she had her first origin, yet is this desire 
being naturall no way discommendable, for that it shews the 
generosity of the minde.' 

One of Robert Holland's sons, Nicholas, also took Holy 
Orders, and in 1618 was presented by the Crown to the 
Vicarage of Marloes in Pembrokeshire. His descendants, 
from father to son, for more than a century practised law at 
Haverfordwest, holding estates at Walwyns Castle, Walton 
West, and other places in that county. It will be seen, from 
the pedigree annexed, that the family has never ceased to 
be carried on in the male line, though it is no longer 
represented in Wales, having for nearly two hundred years 
been settled in England, where they have evinced a marked 
predilection for Oxford and for taking Holy Orders, first in 
the person of the Rev. Nicholas Holland, M.A., born in 1713, 
Vicar of Mucking and Rector of Stifford, in Essex. He 
married Jane Clarke of the Ikenham family. His elder sons, 
Thomas, a Colonel in the Indian Army, and William, an 


Indian merchant, left no male issue. Not so his third son. 
Dr. Samuel Holland, a distinguished divine, who, besides 
holding two or three other livings, was Rector of Poynings 
in Sussex, and after 1817 Precentor and Prebendary of 
Chichester Cathedral. His grandson. Sir Thomas Erskine 
Holland, says of him : ' Landscape gardening was indeed a 
favourite amusement with him, and he was a considerable 
botanist. He kept up his classics, and was a man of wide 
general reading. He was, after the fashion of those days, 
thoroughly religious, always taking a selection of devotional 
works in the old-fashioned chariot in which his frequent 
journeys were made between Poynings and Chichester. He 
firmly believed in the advantages of the system which 
accumulated preferment upon the superior clergy, and was 
strongly opposed to Methodism, maintaining these views in 
sermons which attracted a good deal of attention. He was 
a Rural Dean, and zealous in the discharge of the duties of 
the office.' 

Dr. Holland married Frances, daughter of Lord Chancellor 
Erskine, and had two sons, who both became clergymen, 
and four daughters. In 1846 he resigned the living of 
Poynings, in which he was succeeded by his eldest son, Thomas 
Agar Holland, M.A., previously Rector of Greatham, Hants, 
who held it till his death in 1888. A short account of him 
is given in the ' Dictionary of National Biography.' He wrote 
much verse throughout his life, and one of his earlier poems, 
' Dryburgh Abbey,' was warmly praised by Sir Walter Scott. 
He also published prose writings. He married Madalena, 
daughter of Major Philip Stewart, and had five sons, three 
of whom became clergymen, as have also two of his grandsons. 
His eldest son, the distinguished international jurist, Sir 
Thomas Erskine Holland, K.C., D.C.L., F.B.A., Fellow of 
All Souls College, sometime Chichele Professor of Inter- 
national Law at Oxford, has several sons, one of them 
holding a high position in the Indian Civil Service. 

Kuwmy Hom miARhmm 



Prom the Monument in Conway Church, which also commemorates by 
inscriptions successively added tliree more generations of the family 


Sir Thomas Erskine Holland is intimately acquainted 
with the history of his family. As long ago as 1866 he con- 
tributed an article, with pedigree, on the ' Hollands ot 
Conway,' to the 'Archaeologia Cambrensis,' series 3, vol. xii, 
and has subsequently printed for ' private circulation only * 
a full history of their fortunes during five hundred years. 

The present writer is indebted and grateful to him for 
information on the subject contained in the preceding pages. 


II. — The Hollands of Denbighshire and Anglesey 

In addition to the Hollands of Conway there was in Wales 
a group of families of the same name, bearing the same 
arms with a different crest, but of more doubtful descent. 
Its various branches were established at Pennant, Kinmel, 
Teyrdan, Hendrefawr, Denbigh, and Berw. 

In the reign of King Charles I, the right of Sir Thomas 
Holland of Berw to his arms was actively challenged. The 
result was a special heraldic inquiry, resulting in the following 
* Confirmation ' : 

' To all and singulare to whom these presents shall come, 
John Borough Knight Garter Principall King of Armes 
sendeth greeting : Upon complaint made unto me that 
Sir Thomas Holland of Berrow in the county of Anglesey, 
Kt. did unduley beare for his armes azure a lyon rampant 
gardant between five flowers de lice argent, w^ armes (as 
was conceived) properlie belonged to the family of Holland 
some time Duke of Exeter, the said Sir Thomas Holland 
having notice given him of y^ said complaynt repayred unto 
me, and produced divers and sundry auncient evidences, 
pedigrees, bookes of armes, letters patents and other authen- 
tique testimonies of credible persons : whereby it manifestly 
appeared that the said Sir Thomas Holland is lineally 
descended from Hoshkin alias Roger Holland, who by 
computation of time lived in or neer the raigne of Edward 
the third. He the said Sir Thomas being the sonne of Owen, 
Sonne of Edward, sonne of Owen, sonne of John, sonne of 
Howell, sonne of the above named Hoshkin Holland, and 
that John Holland, sonne of Howell Holland aforesaid was 
household servant to King Henry the sixt, and Owen Holland 
great-grandfather to the said Sir Thomas was sheriffe of the 
county of Anglesey for tearme of his life as by letters patents 
under the scales of King Henry the seventh and King Henry 


the eighth and certain deeds of Charles Brandon, Duke of 
Suffolke, and other muniments, appeareth. And further 
that by sundry matches and marriages the said Sir Thomas 
is alhed to many famihes of undoubted gentry in and near 
the said county, who acknowledge the said Sir Thomas for 
their allie and kinsman : beside ye testimony of divers 
gentlemen of the name of Holland issued from the aforesaid 
Hoshkin alias Roger their common ancestor : and as touching 
the arms above mentioned, it is manifest by sundry pedigrees 
and bookes of armes remayning in the custody of George 
Owen, Esquire, Yorke Herauld, that the ancestors of the 
said Sir Thomas did beare the same as they doe above em- 
blazoned. In consideration of which premises and for that 
the said Sir Thomas Holland is not only dignified with 
knighthood, but likewise a justice of the peace and one of 
the deputie lieutenants in the county where he liveth : I have 
thought fit at his request to signifie and declare by these 
presentes that the said Sir Thomas Holland and his heires of 
that family resp'ly may use and bear the foresaid armes each 
with his proper difference according to the law and usage of 
armes. In witness whereof I have hereunto affixed the seals 
of mine office and subscribed my name. Dated the five and 
twentieth day of November in the eleventh year of the reign 
of our Sovereign Lord Charles by the grace of God King of 
Great Brittaine, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, 
etc., and in the yeare of Our Lord God, 1635.' 

The argument of the Herald appears to rest upon the 
social position of Sir Thomas, and no attempt is made to 
trace the pedigree above Hoshkin or Roger Holland. It is, 
however, alleged by reputable authorities that this Roger 
was the great-grandson of a Sir Thomas Holland who married 
Joyce daughter of Sir Jasper Croft, and lived in the reign 
of Edward I. This Sir Thomas was alleged to be a son of 
the first Sir Thurstan Holland of Upholland, and therefore 


brother of Sir Robert Holland, father of Robert, first Lord 
Holland. The name of such a Thomas does not occur in 
the Lancashire records, but this is perhaps not enough to 
prove his non-existence. Thurstan had, however, a son 
named Roger, but nothing is known of him, or any descend- 
ants of his. Roger may possibly have gone to Wales. 

Other origins have been attributed to these Hollands, 
but no doubt are mythical. Pennant, in his ' Tour of Wales,' 
1784, says (vol. ii, p. 354) : ' The pedigrees derive them 
from a Sir Thomas Holland, who, tradition says, came, with 
another brother, into Wales in troublesome times. I have 
reason to suppose them to have been William and Thomas, 
the two younger sons of John Holland, Duke of Exeter, 
who died in 1446, and left to each of them an annuity of 
£40. They were of a most unpopular family, therefore 
probably retired to shun the miseries they might experience 
in that age of civil discord.' William and Thomas were, in 
fact, illegitimate sons, and were so described in the Duke's will ; 
but nothing in the least authentic is known as to their 
lives. John Williams, in his ' Denbigh,' says that ' the 
Hollands of these parts have a family tradition that they are 
descended from a Lord Holland who, having committed 
high treason, fled to Wales, and, when in exile, living in the 
Snowdonian Wilds, married a Welsh peasant, the daughter 
of a pedlar.' These wild legends are by no means chrono- 
logically compatible with the Herald's Report which traces the 
origin to Roger or Hoshkin Holland, who lived in the reign of 
Edward III, and no credit whatever is to be attached to them. 

A full pedigree accompanies the article, contributed in 
1867 by Sir Thomas Erskine Holland to the ' Archaeologia 
Cambrensis ' (series 3, vol. xiii.), upon this widespreading 
family of Hollands of Denbighshire and Anglesey. It is to 
this article that the present writer is indebted for the above 
account of them, but it did not seem necessary to reproduce 


here the copious pedigree of these probably extinct folk of 
dubious origin. They seem all to have died out in the male 
line, in the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth cen- 
turies. They were an extremely provincial race, and, almost 
without exception, married into Welsh Celtic families. 

Only one of their offspring is distinguished enough to 
appear in the ' Dictionary of National Biography.' This is 
Hugh Holland,! who was born at Denbigh, educated at West- 
minster School, a Scholar in 1589, and afterwards a Fellow, of 
Trinity College, Cambridge. He travelled to Rome, Jeru- 
salem, and Constantinople, and on his return studied in the 
Oxford libraries. He died in 1633, at the age of seventy, 
and was buried, without any monument, near the door 
of St. Benet's Chapel in Westminster Abbey. He wrote : 
(1) The not very brilliant sonnet prefixed in 1629 to 
the first folio of Shakespeare, and therefore the best 
known of his compositions ; (2) Verses prefixed to a 
musical work entitled ' Parthenia,' 1611 ; (3) Verses pre- 
fixed to the ' Roxana of Alabaster ' ; (4) ' On the Death of 
Prince Henry ' ; (5) ' On Matthew, Bishop of Durham ' ; 
(6) ' Verses Descriptive of the Cities of Europe ' ; (7) ' Life 
of Camden ' ; (8) ' A Cypress Garland for the Sacred Forehead 
of our late Sovereign, King James.' He dedicated the 
* Cypress Garland ' to George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, 
who, he says in the magniloquent and obsequious style of the 
age ' led me by the hand, not once, nor twice, to kiss that 
awful hand [of James I] to which I durst not else have 
aspired. With what sweetness and bravery the Great 
Majesty of Britain embraced then his meanest vassel our 
young Sovereign, then Prince of my country [Wales] Your 
Grace, and the honourable lords then present, perhaps 
remember ; sure I am I can never forget, and, if I do, let 
my right hand forget her cunning ' etc. 

* His descent is quite clear. See Arch. Camb. mentioned above. 


This is pretty strong, and so it is when Holland in the 
poem calls James ' a mortal God.' It must have made 
Buckingham smile. Hugh Holland is also guilty in this 
poem of this account of the ravages recently made by 
death in the ranks of the English nobility. 

How many great ones here not meanly graced 
In thirteen months the dance of Death have traced ! 
Three Earls, two Dukes, a Marquis, and a Baron, 
Who then may 'scape thy boat, uncourteous Caron ? 

The same 'Cypress Garland ' contains a sad little fragment 
of autobiography : 

Cursed be the day that I was born, and cursed 
The nights that have so long my sorrows nursed. 
Yet grief is by the surer side my brother 
The child of Pain, and Payne was eke my mother,^ 
Who children had, the Ark had men as many. 
Of which, except myself, now breathes not any. 
Nor Ursula, my dear, nor Phil, my daughter. 
Amongst us Death hath made so dire a slaughter ; 
Them, and my Martin, have I, wretch, survived. . . . 

Fuller, in his ' English Worthies,' expresses the opinion 
that Hugh Holland was ' no bad English, but a most excellent 
Latin poet.' He also says that he was ' addicted to the 
new-old religion,' and when in Italy ' let fly freely against 
the credit of Queen Elizabeth,' for which scandalum Regince, 
when he arrived at Constantinople, on his way back from 
Palestine, Sir Thomas Glover, ambassador there for King 
James I, had him put into prison for a while. He was dis- 
appointed, says Fuller, on his return to England, at not 
getting an official post, expecting to be made Clerk of the 
Council at least, and ' grumbled out the rest of his life in 
visible discontentment.' The poet certainly ought not to 
have expected any official promotion after letting fly so 

^ Hugh Holland's mother was a Miss Payne by birth. 


freely at Queen Elizabeth. Fuller, however, had a prejudice 
against Hugh Holland, on the ground that the poet was 
more or less a Catholic, and his remarks may therefore lack 
verity. Anthony a Wood, who was no Puritan, says (' Ath. 
Oxon.,' vol. ii, p. 560) that Hugh Holland ' died within the 
City of Westminster (having always been ex animo Catholicus), 
in 1633, whereupon his body was buried in the Abbey Church 
of St. Peter there, near to the door entering into the monu- 
ments, on the three and twentieth day of July in the same 
year. I have seen (Wood adds) a copy of his epitaph made 
by himself, wherein he is styled, " Miserrimus peccator, 
musarum et amicitiarum cultor sanctissimus." ' Rather a 
touching self-inscription. 

Hugh Holland had an interesting, if not very fortunate, 
life, and he evidently belonged to the best literary society 
of the time — ^that which included Ben Jonson and Shake- 
speare. He could tell them tales of Wales, Cambridge, 
Rome, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. 


Brian Holland, said to be grandson of Thurstan Holland of Denton who died 1508. 

Edward Holland 
of Glossop in Derby- 

John HoUand, = 
a Puritan Divine. I 

John Holland = Anne Warner, 
of Wortwell Hall, 
RedenhaU, Nor- 
folk; d. Feb. 10, 
1542. Servant of 
Duke of Norfolk. 

Dr. Philemon Holland = Anne Peyton. 
(1552-1636). I 


d. 1626 

Seven other 

Two other 

sons and 

a daughter. 

Sir Thomas HoUand 
of KenninghaU. 

Brian HoUand = Katherine Payne, 
o f Wo r t w e 1 1 ; 
Escheator of 

John HoUand ; = Mary, d. of Sir Edmund 

bought Quiden- 
ham; d. 1586. 

Windham of Felbrigg Hall, 

Sir Thomas HoUand = Mary, d. of Sir Edward 
of Quidenham and Wigmore of Middlesex. 
WortweU ; knighted 
1608; d. 1625. 

Sir John HoUand ; = Alathea, widow of Lord Katherine = Sir Robert Crompton 

made Baronet 1629 ; 
6. 1603, d. 1700. 

Sandys of the Vine, 

Thomas HoUand; 
d. 1698. 

EUzabeth Read. 

Katharine, a nun 
at Bruges. 

Three other sons; 

I I 

Sir John HoUand, Bart., = Lady Rebecca, d. of Three other sons ; 

of Quidenham. I Earl of Yarmouth. d.s.p. 

d. 1724 \ 

Sir William HoUand, = d. of M. Upton, IsabeUa. Diana. Oharlbtte 

Bart., of Quidenham. a Spanish merchant. 
d.s.p. 1729 



I. — Hollands of Norfolk 

Homo, vanitati similis factus est, dies eius sicut umbra prsetereunt. 

Ps. 143 

A FAMILY of Hollands, settled in Norfolk, claimed descent 
from the Lancashire Hollands of Denton, and bore as arms 
the lion and lilies, with the motto Secreta mea mihi. Their 
claim was vouched for and pedigree given in the sixteenth- 
century ' Visitations of Norfolk ' (Harleian Society, vol. xxxii, 
p. 158). Here they are made to descend from Brian Holland 
of Denton, who, in Blomefield's ' History of Norfolk ' (1739, 
vol. i, p. 231), is said to have been a grandson of Thurstan 
Holland of Denton, who died in 1508, by his third son, John. 
No such son John is, however, mentioned in the Denton 
pedigree. The son of Brian, named John Holland, owned 
Wortwell House in Redenhall, Norfolk. He was a ' trustee 
and servant of the Duke of Norfolk.' He died February 10, 
1542.1 jjis son, Brian Holland, was Escheator of Norfolk — 

1 Another Holland, George, was secretary to the same Duke, when he was 
arrested for treason in 1547, and the officials found in the house Elizabeth 
Holland, a mistress of the Duke. But George Holland was certainly one of the 
Hollands of Estovening, Lincolnshire, and so, probably, was Miss Elizabeth, 
descendants from Sir Thomas Holland, who mostly lived in the Holy Land, and 
his wife, Elizabeth, the "devilish dame." In the seventeenth century the Hollands 
of Quidenham were for two generations trustees of the Howard estates in Norfolk. 



the local official who looked after the financial interests of 
the Crown in each county. This respectable Escheator 
can hardly be the Brian Holland of Norfolk, who in 1572 
received a pardon from Queen Elizabeth for treasonable 
action committed in 1569 when he and others assembled 
in arms at Cringleford ? Their motives, if mistaken, were 
truly patriotic, for they gave out their intention in these 
words : ' We will procure the Commons to rise and exprese 
the strangers out of the Cyty of Norwich and other places 
in England, and when we have levied a Powre, we will 
loke about us, and so many as will not take our partes, we 
will hange them up.' 

The son of Brian Holland the Escheator was named 
John, and acquired Quidenham, in Norfolk, and married 
Mary, daughter of Sir Edmund Windham of Felbrig, near 
Cromer. His son Thomas was knighted by King James I, 
at Greenwich, on May 24, 1608, together with two other 
Norfolk gentlemen — Sir Rotherem Willoughby and Sir 
Anthony Pell. He died in 1625. John Holland, of Qui- 
denham, the son of this Sir Thomas, was born in 1603, 
and on June 15, 1629, was created a baronet by King 
Charles I.^ Afterwards, he sat in the House of Commons 
as a member for Norfolk, and ungratefully joined the 
Opposition. He became a Presbyterian during the Civil 
War, and served as a Colonel in the Parliament's Army, 
and on many committees. He was once sent by the 
Parliament as a Commissioner to treat with King Charles I, 
and from February to May 1660, he was a member of 
the new Council of State, which arranged the Restora- 
tion.^ He married Alathea, widow of Lord Sandys of 

1 Sir John Holland had a sister Katharine, called on her monument at 
Quidenham ' Filia pulcherrima Thomae Holland.' She married Sir Robert 
Crompton, and died in 1653, aged 34. 

' Complete Baronetage, by G. E. C, 1902, vol. ii, p. 74. 


the Vine, and lived till January 19, 1700, when he died at 
the age of ninety- seven. 

His wife, Alathea, had died in 1679. Her monument 
in Quidenham Church says that she had by Sir John Holland 
six sons and five daughters, and with him ' lived happily 
50 years within three months and then, the 69th year of 
her age, upon the 22nd day of May, 1679, she cheerfully 
rendered up her pious soul to God that gave it.' Sir John, 
according to the inscription upon a monument which he 
erected for himself, seventeen years before his death, was 
a * benefactor to his family,' and ' eminent for his particular 
abilities and integrity.' 

Sir John Holland and his wife Alathea had a daughter 
named Catharine, who was born in 1635. Sir John was a 
strong Protestant, and severe in temper. His wife was a 
zealous Catholic, and good and amiable. Her husband 
had married her, after the death in 1629 of her first husband. 
Lord Sandys of the Vine, for worldly and interested motives, 
but was sensible of her worth, and used to call her ' the 
mirror of wives.' He would often say to his daughter, 
' Imitate your mother in all but her religion.' Sir John 
removed his children from their mother's tuition, and looked 
after their education himself. He taught Catharine to 
read and write, and made her when she heard a sermon 
write it down afterwards, as nearly as possible word for 
word, and punished her severely if she made mistakes. 
Catharine Holland spent her time with girls of her own 
quality who were absorbed in pleasures, but she would 
often say to herself, ' The religion I follow seems to be but 
an empty shadow ; there must be one true and only faith ; 
where can I find it ? ' Sir John, after the execution of the 
King and the seizure of power by the advanced Republicans, 
quarrelled with his party, and in 1651 removed his family 
abroad, living first at Bruges. Here Catharine for the 


first time saw Catholic worship, and said to herself, ' Here 
is God truly served,' and prayed that He would enlighten 
her mind. She was now sixteen years old. Sir John then 
removed his children into Protestant Holland, leaving his 
wife in Brabant. After two years, however, he allowed 
Catharine to return there to see her mother. Within two 
years from then she had resolved to become a Catholic, 
and wrote so to her father, who was now back in England. 
He was very angry, and did his best to prevent it. After 
the Restoration he brought his family back to England, 
where he made Catharine talk to the Bishop of Winchester, 
whom, in her own opinion, she completely defeated in 
argument. Sir John lived in Holborn, and a door opened 
from his garden into Fetter Lane. Here, as Catharine 
discovered, lodged two Catholic priests belonging to a 
religious Order. She consulted them, and they advised her 
to follow her conscience, but would do no more, because 
their superiors thought that if they received her into the 
Church, the whole Catholic body would suffer, as Sir John 
Holland was a man of much influence. Catharine, therefore, 
fled from her father's house and got to Bruges, where she 
made her profession as an Augustinian Nun on September 7, 
1664, at the age of twenty-nine. Sir John at last relented, 
upon the intercession of Henry, Duke of Norfolk, and even 
gave £400 to his daughter, as a religious dowry. The Duke 
himself led Catharine to the Altar. 

Catharine Holland wrote three books : (1) Spiritual 
dramas, and fugitive pieces of poetry ; (2) Translations from 
French and Dutch books of piety ; (3) Reasons why she 
became a Catholic, from which the facts of her life are derived. 

She died at Bruges in the year 1720, at the age of eighty- 
five, having been a Nvin for fifty-six years, in that somnolent 
city of the plain. They must have passed even more like a 
dream than the years of most lives. 


Enlarged from the Portrait on the Title-page of ' Cyrupaedia.' 
The original engraving is by William ilarshall 


The first Sir John Holland of Quidenham was succeed ed 
in the estates and baronetcy by his grandson, also named 
John, having outlived his son, Colonel Thomas Holland. 
This second Sir John married the Lady Rebecca Paston, 
daughter of the second Earl of Yarmouth, by his wife 
Charlotte Boyle, or Fitzroy, an illegitimate daughter of 
King Charles II. This Sir John died a young man in 1724. 
His son, Sir William, succeeded, and then the baronetcy 
became extinct for lack of male issue. 

John Holland, of Wortwell, the ' servant of the Duke 
of Norfolk,' had a brother named Edward, who lived at 
Glossop in Derbyshire. A son of this Edward was John 
Holland, a Puritan divine, who, on account of his religion, 
had to fly to the Continent in the reign of Queen Mary, 
but returning home, under Elizabeth, became Rector of 
Dunmow Magna, in Essex, and died there in 1578. His 
son was Dr. Philemon Holland, a mighty scholar and inde- 
fatigable translator. Of him, that insatiable devourer of 
books, the poet Robert Southey, wrote that ' Philemon, 
for the service which he rendered to his contemporaries 
and his countrymen, deserves to be called the best of 
the Hollands.' 

Doctor Philemon may not have been this, but he 
really was a great man in his own line. He was born at 
Chelmsford in Essex, in 1552, and educated at Trinity 
College, Cambridge. In 1595 he settled at Coventry, and 
lived there for forty years. At first he practised medi- 
cine, without much success, and, next, in 1608, became 
an usher in the Coventry Free School, and in 1627 he 
rose to the position of head master. The great day of his 
life was in 1617, when King James I visited Coventry, and 
Philemon, as the best Latinist in the place, was selected 
to address the learned monarch in a Latin oration. The 
municipal annals of Coventry record that the King was met 


outside the Bishop's gate by the mayor and aldermen in 
scarlet gowns, and that ' Dr. Philemon Holland, drest in 
a suit of black satin, made an oration, for which he had much 
praise.' Dr. Holland's shirt cost the town £l Ss. Id., and 
the suit of black satin, with trimmings, cost £14 7s^ 

Philemon Holland, it is recorded, suffered from poverty, 
but ' always kept good hospitality. Sic tola Coventria 
testis.^ He was evidently a fine old fellow. Although he 
lived till he was eighty-five, and read and wrote incessantly, 
he never used spectacles in his life. He turned from Latin 
into English, Pliny, Plutarch's ' Morals,' Suetonius, Livy, 
Camden's ' Britannia,' and other books. The appearance of 
Suetonius produced this epigram : 

' Philemon with translations does so fill us 
, He will not let Suetonius be Tranquillus.' 

He translated all ' the Romane Historic ' of Livy, and 
some shorter works, with a single quill pen : ' a monumental 
pen,' says Fuller, ' which he solemnly kept.' A lady, who 
was his friend, had it set in silver for him. Philemon com- 
posed about it the following poem : 

' With one sole pen I wrote this book. 

Made of a grey goose quill, 
A Pen it was when I it took, 
A Pen I leave it still.' 

Until his last illness, he was ' indefatigable in study.' 
Fuller says of him : ' He was the translator-general in his 
age, so that the books alone of his turning into English 
are sufficient to make a country gentleman a competent 

Philemon appears in Pope's picture of a heavy and solemn 
library in the ' Dunciad ' : 

^ J. Nichols, Progresses of King James, vol. iii, p. 423. 


' But, high above, more soHd learning shone, 
The Classics of an Age that heard of none. 
There Caxton slept with Wynkin at his side, 
One clasped in wood, the other in strong cow-hide. 
There, saved by spice like mummies many a year. 
Dry bodies of divinity appear ; 
De Lyra there a dreadful front extends. 
And here the groaning shelves Philemon bends.' 

Philemon Holland died February 9, 1636, aged eighty- 
five. He composed for himself a long Latin verse epitaph, 
inscribed over his tomb in Coventry Church. The first four 
lines contain a very bad pun upon his family name : 

' Philemon 
Holland hie recubat rite repostus humo. 
Si quaeras ratio quaenam sit nominis, haec est, 
Totus terra fui, terraque totus ero.' 

That is, ' I have been whole land,' &c. This seems to show 
that Holland was still then pronounced as if spelt Holand. 
Philemon married Anne, daughter of William Peyton of 
Perry Hall, Staffordshire, and she died in 1627, at the age of 
seventy-two, after forty-eight years of marriage. Three 
daughters and seven sons had she given to Philemon. She 
also had a Latin inscription in Coventry Church, composed 
by her son Henry, the London bookseller and antiquary. 
Here are some lines of it. The first is mellifluous : 

' Hie recubat dilecta Philemonis uxor Holandi, 
Anna pudicitiae non ulli laude secunda, 
Quadraginta octoque annos quae nupta marito, 
Septem illi pueros enixa est, tresque puellas, 
Lactavitque omnes, genetrix eadem est pia nutrix 
Septuaginta duos vitse numerararat annos 

Quodque unum potui, supremi pignus amoris, 
Filius hoc dedit Henricus ad carmina marmor.' 


Henry Holland alone of Philemon's seven sons survived 
his octogenarian father. He was a man of some mark also. 
He wrote books of an antiquarian-historical-genealogical 
kind, and was a publisher and bookseller in London.^ One 
of his books was a treatise on Holland pedigrees, published in 
1615. A more pretentious work of his was called ' Hero-logia 
Anglica,' published in 1620. It is a set of short accounts 
written in inflated Latin of some English worthies, and 
unworthies, beginning with King Henry VIII down to his 
own time. It contains much coarse and virulent abuse of 
the See of Rome and of the old religion of England. He 
says that he has travelled in several papist countries, and 
found absolutely no good in any. He says that the ' Baby- 
lonica Circe converted Sir Thomas More into a pig,' and so 
forth. He described himself as a ' zealous hater and abhorrer 
of all superstition and popery, and prelaticall innovations in 
Church government, ' and was imprisoned by order both of 
the High Commission Court and Star Chamber, in Laud's 
time. Afterwards, however, he declared himself adverse 
* to all late sprung up sectaries,' only approving of the earlier 
kinds. In 1643 he served in the Midlands in the life-guards 
of the Earl of Denbigh, the General of the Parliament then 
commanding in those parts, and was ' eldest man of the troop, 
being sixty years old' — well over military age. Subsequently 
he was ruined by lawsuits and seems to have become a wreck, 
mentally and bodily. In one writing of his he says that he 
is now aged sixty-two. He claims descent from the Hollands 
of Upholland in order to show his affinity to the extinct 
ducal branch. He is proud of being acknowledged cousin 
by Sir John Holland, Baronet, of Quidenham, from whom 
he gives a letter addressed to him at ' the Falcon ' in Cheap- 
side. He calls God to witness that he is descended from 
Brian Holland and is cousin of Sir John, but, he says, he 

^ See account of his works in Dictionary of National Biography. 


does not know from whom Brian descended, ' so careless 
have the heralds been of late,' though he has gone over 
300 years, and searched not a few books. After these 
mundane vanities he becomes pious and talks of his ' heavenly 
heritage,' and seems altogether sadly doting, although he 
had been an industrious man in his time. 

Another son of Philemon, who died before him, named 
Abraham Holland, wrote pompous poems : a list of which 
is given under his name in the 'Dictionary of National 

IL — ^Hollands of Devonshire 

The pedigree of this family, for nine generations down to 
1576, is fully set out in the ' Visitations of County Devon,' 
printed in the Harleian Society publications, vol. vi, p. 345. 
The information was given to the Heralds by Joseph Holland, 
who was the representative of this family at that time. He 
is described by John Prince, in his ' Worthies of Devon,' 
published in 1697, as ' a gentleman, sometime of the Inner 
Temple, a laborious antiquary, and excellently skilled in 
armory,' especially in the arms of Devonshire families. The 
arms of these Hollands were the ' azure semee oj fleurs de lys, 
a lion rampant oj sameJ They are stated to have descended 
from John, a fourth son of Sir Robert de Holland, of Up- 
holland, first Lord Holland. This John does not appear in 
the Lancashire histories or elsewhere, but may have lived 
none the less — possibly an illegitimate son of the illustrious 
Robert. He married a South Devon heiress. John Prince 
says that Margaret, the daughter of Augustine, son and 
heir of Sir Walter de Bath, brought Bath House at Weare, 
near Topsham, and other estates in South Devon, to her 
husband, Sir Andrew INIetstead, whose daughter and heiress, 
Eleanor, brought them ' to her husband, John Holland, of 


the same noble family with the Duke of Exeter,' and that 
their ' posterity is yet (1695) in being in this county, though 
much shorn of the splendour of their ancestors.' 

Sir Walter de Bath was High Sheriff of Devon in 1238, 
and lived till at least 1252. So that his granddaughter, in 
point of time, may well have married a man who was son of 
Robert, Lord Holland, and younger brother of the first Earl 
of Kent. Except for Joseph, the Elizabethan antiquary, 
this family produced no one of the slightest distinction, and 
it gradually declined in social standing, and seems to be now 
extinct in the male line. 

III. — Hollands of Sussex 

This branch is stated in the ' Visitations of Sussex ' (Har- 
leian Society publications, vol. liii, p. 17) to descend from Sir 
Richard Holland, owner of Denton in the reign of Henry VIII, 
through Richard Holland, one of his sons by his marriage 
with Anne Fitton. According to the Denton pedigree, this 
son Richard died without issue, but, if this be correct, the 
Sussex Hollands may, perhaps, have descended from 
another son of Sir Richard, by another marriage, also called 
Richard (see pedigree). These Hollands had an estate at 
Westburton in Sussex. This is their descent given in the 
' Visitations of Sussex ' : 

Sir Richard Holland of Denton, = Anne Fitton. 
temp. Hen. VIII. 

Richard Holland, 3rd son . = 

Thomas Holland, 2nd son . = 

John Holland . . . . = Elizabeth Parsons. 
William Holland . . . = Frances, dau. oj 

Henry Shelley oj 
Frances, dau. and sole heiress == John Ashhurnham. 


This John Ashburnham (1603-1671), of Ashburnham 
near Battle, was a Sussex Squire of ancient lineage, and was 
the faithful and intimate servant of King Charles I during 
the last sad years of his life. He was with him in his flight 
from Hampton Court, and it was through his error of judg- 
ment that the King was recaptured. From him and his wife, 
Frances Holland, descend the Earls of Ashburnham. 

Henry Shelley, above mentioned, is ancestor of all the 
Sussex Shelleys of Michelgrove, Field Place, &c. — a very 
antique Sussex family. These Hollands did not bear for 
their crest the Holland lion, but an ash-tree rising out of 
a ducal coronet, and their arms were gules, a fesse between 
six mullets argent. These were also the arms and crest of 
the Ashburnhams. The reason for this does not appear. 

There was in Sussex another family of Holland living at 
Angmering, whose pedigree for five generations, in the six- 
teenth and seventeenth centuries, is given by Berry. This 
family had the same crest and arms as the Hollands of 
Conway ; but Berry, in his ' Sussex Genealogies,' does 
not say that they were derived from these, or from the 
Hollands of Upholland. The first of them mentioned is a 
William Holland of Calais. 

IV. — Hollands of Shropshire 

There was also a Shropshire family of Hollands, of Bur- 
warton and other estates in that county. They used the 
lion and lilies in their arms ; but their descent from the 
Lancashire Hollands cannot be ascertained. They were 
still extant at the Shropshire Visitation of 1623, and are 
there traced upwards through six generations living in the 
same district. 

Dr. Thomas Holland, one of Fuller's ' Worthies,' was 
probably of this family, since he was born at Ludlow 


in Shropshire. He died in 1611. He was Fellow of 
Balliol, Professor of Divinity, and for twenty years 
Rector of Exeter College, Oxford. He was a heavily erudite 
divine. Anthony a Wood says of him (in ' Ath. Oxon.') : 
' This learned Doctor Holland did not, as some, only 
sip of learning, or, at the best, drink thereof, but was 
mersus in lihris, so that the scholar in him drowned 
almost any other relations. He was esteemed by the 
precise men of his time as another Apostle, so familiar with 
the Fathers, as if he himself had been a Father ; with the 
Schoolmen, as if he had himself been another Seraphical 

The originator of the terms in the last sentence was 
Henry Holland in his ' Hero-logia Anglica.' He vaguely 
claims relationship to Dr. Thomas Holland. 

Such was the learned doctor's reputation among the 
Puritan party. He was very Protestant. Anthony a 
Wood says that when going on any long journey he used 
to take this solemn valediction of the Fellows of the 
College : ' I commend you to the love of God, and to the 
hatred of Popery and Superstition ' — Commendo vos dilec- 
tioni Dei et odio papains et super stitionis. Amiable senti- 
ment ! In 1592 Queen Elizabeth visited Oxford in state, 
and as part of the programme of entertainments, Dr. 
Holland, at 9 a.m. on Monday, September 25, read 
a divinity lecture ' at which were present ' — this is not 
surprising — ' hut a few of the nobility, and many scholars.' 
On September 27, he argued before Her Majesty on 
the question : ' An licet in Christiana republica dis- 
simulare in causa veritatis.' He preached at St. Paul's 
Cathedral, on November 17, 1599, a panegyric on the 
Virgin Queen, which was printed in 1610 together with 
a later discourse on the same topic delivered at Oxford. 
In the latter he says of the late Queen : ' By whose honorable 


stipend I have been relieved these many years in this famous 
University, and by whose magnificence, when I served the 
Church of God in the Netherlands, being chaplain to the Earl 
of Leicester, his Honour, I was graciously rewarded.' ^ 

On August 28, 1605, King James I was at Oxford, and, 
to amuse him, various doctors held a debating tournament 
in Latin, the learned monarch attentively listening and 
frequently intervening. One of the questions was this : 
' Whether, if the plague should increase, the pastors of 
churches are bound to visit the sick ? ' Dr. Holland main- 
tained the negative, discharging two syllogisms, which was 
nothing to another disputant, much praised by the King, 
who had a battery of twenty. ^ On another day Dr. Holland, 
before the King, went through the ritual of some degree- 
creation so tediously that His Majesty was bored and the 
proctor had to cut the Doctor short half-way. 

Dr. Holland was no doubt a famous scholar, and Wood 
mentions two or three foreigners who came over to study at 
Oxford attracted by the repute of Holland and Prideaux. 
But he must have been one of the men whose power of writing 
is killed by too much reading and accumulation of detail, 
for he left no great work behind him to load with dull 
weight the book-shelves of posterity. There is such a thing 
as being too learned to write. 

Except for this Dr. Holland, if, as probable, he belonged 
to them, the Shropshire Hollands produced no man of fame. 
One may say of an obscure and vanished family of this kind 

1 Of this Earl of Leicester, the betrayer of Amy Robsart, a Protestant historian, 
Dr. Heylin, said that ' he was a man so unappeasable in his malice, and insatiable 
in his lusts ; so sacrilegious in his rapines, so false in his promises, and treacherous 
in point of trust ; and, finally, so destructive of the rights and properties of 
particular persons, that his little finger lay far heavier on the subjects than the 
loins of all the favourites of the last two kings ' (viz. James I and Charles I). 
Dr. Holland must have neglected his opportunities as chaplain, in a spiritual 

* Nichols, Progresses of King James, vol. i, p. 5i8. 


that which Fuller, in his ' Profane State,' says of the average 
squire : 

' Within two generations his name is quite forgotten 
that ever any such was in the place, except some Herald in 
his Visitation pass by, and chance to spell his broken arms 
in a Church window. And then how weak a thing is gentry 
than which, if it wants virtue, brittle glass is the more lasting 
monument ! ' 

Some such reflections must occur to anyone who per- 
uses county histories, or investigates the history of modest 
famiUes ; yet there is something tranquillising in observing 
the uneventful flow of rural life, and soothing in comparing 
things transitory with things eternal. It seems to me that, 
wherever it is possible, the histories of families should be 
written, so that descendants at least may have some dim 
idea of those who bore the name before them, and who now 
have fallen into almost complete oblivion. That is why 
I have erected this ' Memoriale Hollandorum.^ 



o (u 



> Ph 



o o 

cS l-s o 




1, d. of 
. 1814. 




d CI F 13^ 


§ o"^ 



"o iJ o 00 

Mil "IS 




o t< ' "ti 


'g &;4 














°5 S 












krH CI 

1=^ 00 

^f . 

s «• 

■— I o 

P I— I 



— W. 

N o 
C 00 

c3 g 
O cS 

^ C5 

cs ""^ .jd t^ 

CQ M rfS tj 



ce-2 .. . 
, (11 g) - 

Q P- CO 


O = 

^ «M J 00 

(0 <o u 














nd of 
a tic 






2 W 






rO fe 



^'"3 « 


ce h- 1 











tn «*-l •'■ 


Si fl 




•f -C TS 


^ ce ^ (M 


M-^ a 



- •" 




r;3 rJ3 <D 






0*13 — 










w • _r 


<D R25 


^ o tc'"' 









'S . 

h ... 

'^ W 22 

oT^ . 

— •=; c- cs 


5 a gi°^ 
c3 02 CO 




oO -^ ft 


S «« 00 


cS O 

3 05 


-5 o , 

fl O IT- 
'S Ph t^ 



15 fl c 

.2 oso 

oS «! 


OJ m 



m .o 

three ot 
two daug 

[edon ; 




ns -S IS g o fl 

fl j^^^ a 
















— 1 




'^ "^ o 5 00 00 

02 'O cH 




" is X) 


a T»4 

o3 00 


i-M ... 



.s s 



= >.s 


'^ O 

'^ q •.— < CO 

- p^^ 

n cj CO 

3 ® 


















1— t 














1— < 
















O .3 >jSO 

o a 2 

c-a o 

3 ^:-^ 

'-S ... 

!* S 30 


->i-S 00 

l-r (-1 -H 
W 3 . 


o.ii o « 

_J H -tJ S 

ft o 




3 ti t~ cl 

.3 > 00 ^ 



This note is intended for members of the Clifton-Rhodes-Mobberley- 
Kjiutsford line, and will not be of interest to others. 

The Rev. John Booker, Vicar of Prestwich, a learned Lancashire 
antiquary who specialised on the Manchester district, and wrote 
about 1850, says, in his ' Memorials of Prestwich,' p. 214, as to the 
estate called ' Rhodes,' or sometimes ' The Rodes ' : ' From the 
old local family it passed in marriage with an heiress into the family 
of Parr, from whom it was conveyed by two sisters and co-heiresscs — 
one portion to William, son of William Holland of Clifton, in right 
of his wife, Jane Parr, and the remainder to Foxe of Lathom, who 
had espoused the other sister.' 

It appears, however, from later information, that Jane Parr 
married John Foxe, and that it was the other sister (name lost) who 
married this Wilham Holland. John Foxe was in occupation of 
Rhodes in 1541, so that he must have married Jane Parr before then. 
His widow, Jane, died in 1580. Her will is abstracted in the Chetham 
Society Papers, new series 1, p. 210, ' Lancashire and Cheshire Wills.' 
It is a will of ' Jane Foxe, widow of John Foxe of The Rhodes in 
Pilkington.' She left to ' Henry, my son, a ring. Item to 
Hollande,' &c. ' My son V/ilKam and his son John to be my 
executors.' Unluckily the Christian name of the ' Hollande,' is not 
decipherable in the MSS. 

The Rhodes estate must have been divided, and there may 
have been two houses, for both Hollands and Foxes of Rhodes 
occur in the parochial register in the seventeenth century. 

Now Mr. W. F. Irvine in his otherwise excellent book, called 
' The Family of Hollands of Mobberley and Knutsford ' — which v,as 
printed for private circulation in 1902, but is now to some extent 



in the book market— says, on p. 30, that the WilUam Holland who 
married Miss Parr of Rhodes could not have been, as Mr. Booker 
and others have said, son of the Wilham Holland of CUfton, who 
married AUce Werden, and died in 1523. This statement, he says, 
is ' demonstrably false.' Why ? Because, he says, ' the WilUam 
Holland, son of Wilham Holland of Chfton and Alice Werden, 
went into Shropshire and there founded a family, as will be seen by 
reference to the ' Visitation of Shropshire, 1623,' and so obviously 
cannot have also settled at Rhodes and died there in 1603. 

Mr. Irvine's memory unluckily played him false on this occasion. 
A reference to the ' Visitation of Shropshire, 1623,' published in the 
Harleian Society Papers, will show that there was in Shropshire at 
that time only one Holland family — that of Burwarton — and that 
they had been settled there for generations : before either the 
Wilham Holland of Clifton, who died in 1523, or his sixth son, 
Wilham, were bom. 

Their then hving representative, who signed the pedigree in 
1623, was indeed named Wilham, but had obviously nothing to do 
with the Hollands of CHfton, and could not possibly have been the 
son of the Wilham Holland of Chfton who died in 1523. He would, 
for one thing, in that case, have been over one hundred years old. 
Mr. Irvine has entirely admitted this mistake to me in a letter. 

Again, Mr. Irvine bad not, unfortunately, before him, when he 
composed his book, an old vellum pedigree which was made about 
1652 for the William Holland who bought Mobberley, and is now 
in my possession. It is good evidence, at any rate, of what he and 
others then beheved to be the fact. This pedigree states that 
Wilham Holland of Mobberley was the son of Edward Holland of 
Chorlton, who was the son of Wilham Holland of Rhodes, who was the 
sixth son of Wilham Holland of Chfton who married Ahce Werden. 
This represents the behef of Wilham Holland of Mobberley, in 1652, 
and the information which he could then obtain. The Prestwich 
parish register shows that Hollands of Heaton, Chfton, and Rhodes 
were baptised, married, and buried at that church in the seventeenth 
century, and so must have knoAVTi each other extremely well. Chfton 
and Rhodes he close together, not half a mile apart, on either side 
of the river IrAvell. Chorlton, where Wilham Holland hved until he 
bought Mobberley, is only about five or six miles distant from 
Rhodes and Chfton. The elder hne of Hollands of Chfton were 
hving at Chfton Hall until about 1650, and held land there still 


longer. If William Holland of Mobberley was right in the view 
expressed in his pedigree in 1652, he was a second cousin of Thomas 
Holland — his living contemporary, the Squire of Clifton. But if, as 
on Mr. Irvine's theory, he was entirely mistaken, then the only 
blood connection between them would have been through (as 
their common ancestoi) Thurstan Holland of Denton, who lived 
three hundred years earlier. 

Now a man like William Holland of Mobberley, a conscientious 
Puritan, but sufficiently interested in family history as to have 
an expensively illuminated pedigree made out, and living most of 
his life at Chorlton within an hour's ride of Clifton Hall, which, 
again, was within a rifle-shot of Rhodes where first his uncle and 
then his first cousin resided, could not possibly have made such 
an error as to mistake and solemnly enter in a pedigree as his 
near cousins the family at Clifton, if their connection with him, on 
Mr. Irvine's theory, was so remote. It is, to say the least, highly 
probable that Wilham Holland, in 1652, knew better who were 
his own second cousins, in his immediate neighbourhood, than did 
a gentleman writing about the year 1901. There is no reason at 
aU to suppose that Edward Holland of Chorlton erred in supposing 
William Holland of Clifton to be his grandfather, and he must have 
handed down this fact to his son, Wilham of Mobberley. 

The descent, then, was certainly as follows : 

William Holland = Alice Werden. 
of aifton; d. 1523. I 

William HoUand, = d. of Parr of Rhodes. 

sixth son; 6. about I 
1517, d. 1603. 

W^illiam Holland Edward Holland = Ellen Hulme. 

of Rhodes ; d. 1614. of Chorlton ; prob- I 

] ably b. about 1555 

Hollands of Rhodes. and d. 1624. 

WiUiam Holland, = Anne Bold, 
first of Chorlton, 
then of Mobberley ; 
b. about 1605, d. 

Hollands of Mobberley, 
Sandlebridge, Knutsford, &c. 


The vellum pedigree of 1652, when it gets behind WilUam 
Holland of Clifton, certainly falls into error, which our present 
information makes obvious. It states that this Wilham was the 
son of a Laurence Holland, who again was a younger son of 
Thurstan Holland of Denton, who lived in the reign of Edward IV, 
and married Miss Joan Arderne (see the Denton pedigree). 

But we now know that the Manor of CHfton, held by WilHam 
Holland at his death in 1523, descended to him ; not from such 
late Hollands of Denton, but from a Holland — a younger son of 
the first Thurstan Holland of Denton — who lived a century earlier, 
in the reign of Edward III. The root of this tiresome mistake 
is no doubt in Flower's ' Visitation of Lancashire, in 1567,' a 
public record which evidently misled the expert who drew up the 
pedigree for William Holland of Mobberley in 1652. Flower savs 
that Wilham Holland of CUfton (died 1523) was ' the second sonne 
of Holland of Denton.' 

It is pretty clear what happened. The Hollands of Chfton 
were sadly careless as to matters of pedigree — not even taking the 
trouble to be at home when the Herald called on his Visitation — 
but they held firmly the tradition that they were descended from 
Thurstan Holland of Denton. This was true, because they did 
in fact descend from the Sir Thurstan Holland of Denton (son 
of Sir Wilham de Holland and Margaret Shoresworth) , who lived 
in the reigns of Edward II and Edward III, whose younger son 
Wilham acquired Chfton by marrying Marjory de Trafford. Flower, 
the Heraldic Visitor, on the second Visitation in 1567, hearing 
of this tradition and not knowing exact facts, ascribed their descent 
to ' the second son of Holland of Denton,' cautiously not saying 
which Holland. The expert (probably Randle Holmes) Avho drew 
up the vellum pedigree of 1652, knowing his Flower and also 
hearing of the Thiirstan tradition, imputed the descent to the 
nearest Thurstan Holland of Denton, who by his date would do for 
the grandfather of Wilham Holland of Chfton, who died in 1523. 
He found this in the Thurstan Holland of Denton, who hved 
about 1470-1508, and married Joan Arderne. From this Thurstan, 
accordingly, he started his pedigree, evidently impossibly, since the 
Manor of Chfton could not have come from him. 

The Rev. Joseph Hunter of the mid-nineteenth century, in 
his book called ' Famihse Minorum Gentium,' also gives this erro- 
neous derivation ; but he states that he got the information from 


the family, and does not vouch for it. He evidently regarded 
it with suspicion. 

On the whole matter, then, it is quite clear that — 

1. William Holland, sixth son of William Holland lord of the 
Manor of CUfton, was born about 1517. 

2. He married one of the neighbouring Parr co-heiresses of 
Rhodes — probably before 1545, since the other was married to 
John Foxe before 1541. 

3. He was the executor of the will of his eldest brother, Thomas 
Holland of Clifton, in 1565, and died at age of about eighty-five 
years in 1603, leaving an elder son William, who inherited Rhodes, 
and died in 1614. 

4. One of his younger sons was Edward Holland of Chorlton, 
the father of the William Holland who bought Mobberley in 1650. 

I have been forced to make this tedious disquisition on 
these very uninteresting Hollands by the error made and 
printed by JMr. Irvine, and still more by the fact that his state- 
ment was accepted on this point without further investigation 
by the editors of the admirable ' Victoria,n County History of 
Lancashire.' Mr. Irvine, after erroneously rejecting the descent 
of the Hollands of Mobberley and Kjiutsford from those of Clifton 
— a descent which had been fully accepted by such considerable 
previous authorities as the Rev. John Booker, Mr. James Croston, 
(in his ' History of Samlesbury Hall'), and Mr. Holland Watson — 
then proceeds to suggest a different line of descent from Sir Richard 
Holland of Denton, teni'p. Henry VIII, which rests on no evidence 
whatever, and is, as he himself admits, pure conjecture. 


The following Inquisition made after the death, in 1523, of 
Wilham Holland of CUfton (of whom William Holland of Rhodes 
was sixth son) is not, as is the Clifton Inquisition of 1506, printed 
in the collection of Lancashire Inquisitions, but I have had it 
copied from the original parchment in the Public Records Office. 
I print it here at some length, though with considerable 
abbreviations, as it is a good example of how a squire in the reign 
of Henry VIII made provision for a widow and a large family of 
boys and girls, and it illustrates also the ideas of spelling enter- 


tained in Lancashire at that time. The Report of the Jurors 
is in Latin, but the will of WiUiam Holland, annexed to it, is in 

Duchy of Lancaster Inquistions, Post Mortem. 
Vol. V. No. 49 

The document recites that the Inquisition was taken at Chorley 
in the County of Lancashire, on the Saturday after Easter, in the 
fourteenth year of the reign of King Henry VIII, before James 
Borseley, the King's ' Escaetor ' for Lancashire, and that the Jurors 
were Lever de (?), Charles Somner of Leyland, John Bardesworth, 
Philip Strange, Hugo (?), Richard Edmondson, (?) Eccleston, 
Robert Aghton, John Werden, Richr.rd Charnock, Richard Croston, 
Charles Farrington, and WilHam AUenson. 

They say on oath that WilHam Holland, of Clyfton, did not 
die seised of any lands or tenements held from the King, or from 
the Duchy of Lancaster, but that he was seised of the Manor of 
Clyfton, with some other property mentioned. They then state 
that by an indenture, dated April 17, in the eighth year of King 
Henry VIII, the said WilUam Holland had conveyed the Manor 
of Clyfton, while he was so seised of it, and the other houses and 
lands at Manchester, Swynton, Leyland, and Farryngton, to 
certain trustees — namely, to Richard Holland of Denton, gentle- 
man, Thomas Longley, Charles Whitill, Edward Sudhill of Walton - 
in-le-Dale, Clerks, Nicholas Holland of Deane Hall, and Robert Parr 
of Worseley to hold for the purpose of performing the will of 
the said WilHam Holland declared and contained in a schedule 
thereto annexed. The Jurors state that this will was in the 
following words : 

' Whereas I WilHam Holland of Clyfton in Salfordshire in the 
Countie of Lancaster, Gentleman, of grete confidence and special! 
truste that I have in Richard Holland of Denton Esquire, Thomas 
Longley, Charles Whitill, Edmund Sudhill of Walton in le Dale, 
Clerks, Nicholas Holland of the Deane Hall, and Robert Parr of 
Worseley, Gentlemen, have given, gra,unted, and confermed by 
this my present dede indented. Whereunto this present cedule 
indented is annexed the aforesaid persones their heirs and assignes 
for ever. All my manor and lordship of Clyfton aforesaid and 
all and every my messuages,' &c. &c., 'in Clyfton aforesaid. 


Manchester, Swynton, Leyland and Faryngton in the County of 
Lancaster or ellswher, within the said Countie to the entent 
that they should execute the Will of me the said Wilham 
Holland to them in that behalfe specified published and declared 
as by the said Dede indented more playnely it doth appere. Be it 
knowen to all Cristen people this present writting indented of 
a Will declared ... in manner and forme insuying ; Fyrst I will and 
declare that the aforenamed persones and their heirs shall stand and 
be feoffees peasabully seised of and in all and any of the premises 
to the use and behofe of me the said William Holland for terme of 
my life, and shall suffer me or my attorneys peasabully to percey ve 
take and have yerly All and every the issues, rents,' &c., &c., ' there of 
to mine owne use during all the terme of my life without eny inter- 
ruption,' &c., &c. 'Allso I will that my said feoffees shall make by their 
dede indented at my request a sure and laful estate and feofment of 
parcells of the premises in Clyfton, Leyland and Faryngton aforesaid 
to the yerly value of fyve pounds xvi^ iii^ to Ahce nowe my wif or 
to feoffees for her use for terme of her lif in the name of hir joynture 
and dower, the remeynder thereof after hir decess to me the said 
William Holland duryng all the terme of my lif. Allso I will that 
my said feoffees within xx days after my decess shall make a 
sufficient graunte by their writting indented to the said Ahce or 
to feoffees,' etc. 'of a pare ell of my demeyne of Clyfton aforsaid 
such as I shall name and appoint to byld an house and a barne upon 
with the best of foure kyen both somer and wynter, within my said 
demeyne if she kepe hir sole and unmarried after my decesse toward 
the norrishing fynding and exibition of all my children muUer [i.e. 
girls] except myn heir. And if the said Alice after my decesse 
[here follow provisions for making void this gift if the said Alice 
should sue for anything more in a court of law, and then comes 
a gift of certain titles at Clifton to Alice for life while unmarried] 
to the use and behofe of hir and my yonge children muher.' If 
Alice married again she was to lose all benefits, which would then 
go to ' only my yonge children muher begottyn.' The document 
then declares that ' my said feoffees shall make at my request by 
dede indented such convenient estate and feoffment of parcell of 
the premises at myn appoynting ... as it shall happyn me to 
graunte hereafter to be made by indenture at the mariage of my 
said son and heir. And if it happen me to decesse afor my said son 
and heir shall be committed by me to be maried in my lif then I 


will that my said feoffees with the consent and advyse of the afor- 
said Alice my wyf if she kepe her unmaried shall marie my said son 
and heir in convenient place and to such a gentlewoman as they 
shall best think by their discretion.' And they were to make such 
grants from the estate on such an occasion as they thought advis- 
able. The feoffees were also directed within twenty days after 
WilUam Holland's decease to convey certain specified houses in 
Clifton, Manchester, and Swinton ' to my yonge sons of my body 
by the aforsaid AHce my wyf nowe begottyn or to be gottyn evenly 
and equally to be departed and divided among them for the terme 
of their Hffes all. Provided that if it happyn any of my said yonge 
sons to dye or to be promoted by benefice, prebend, chauntry or 
mariage to the yerly value of 17 marks over all charges and reprises 
for the terme of life,' [In that case the life-gift of the share in house- 
rents is to become ' extinct and of none effect.'] ' And if the said 
AHce kepe hir sole and unmaried after my decesse then I will that 
she shall have the custodie, rule, governance and possession, if it 
shall please hir, of all my said yonge sons and any of them and their 
said anunytes with all their goods so long as thei or any of them will 
be so contented and pleased to be and abide with hir. And if it 
happyn me the said WilKam to dye af or my said son and heir shall be 
of the age of xviii yers completed.' [The feoffees are then to allot the 
executors of his last will to raise 40 marks and use them in accord- 
ance with instructions to be given by his last will and subject to the 
dower and annuities to younger sons, the feoffees should then hold the 
residue of the estate to the use of his son and heir. His wife AHce, 
if she keeps unmarried, is to have the custody, rule, and governance 
of the son and heir until he is twenty-one. WilHam Holland then 
reserves to himself the right of altering the provisions of this his 
present will at any time thereafter.] 

The Jurors at the Inquisition, after stating the above will, 
and describing the various properties with their existing annual 
value, repeat that the said Wilham Holland died on the Wednesday 
before the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel last, that Thomas 
Holland is his son and heir, and that at the date of the Inquisition he 
was sixteen years old and over. 

The minuteness of the portions given to the younger sons is 
worth noting. They only get very small rents for Ufe, and even 
these are to cease if they get slender ecclesiastical preferments or 
marry a girl with a httle money. No wonder that so many younger 


sons of squires could not marry, or disappeared into utter obscurity. 
There was then no army or navy, or home or Indian civil service, 
or colonies, to give them a career. Such would have been the fate of 
my ancestor William Holland, sixth son of Squire William Holland 
of Chfton, had he not chanced, in middle life, to pick up a small 
co-heiress, the daughter of Parr of Rhodes. 









Jean de Wavrin. 


Enguerrand de Monstrelet. 


Jean le Fere. 


Philippe de Commines. 


Chronique de Normandie. 


General Histories 

Barnes, Joshua : History of Edward III and the Black Prince. 

(Cambridge: 1688.) 
Baker's Chronicle. (London : 1660.) 
Carte's General History of England. (1747.) 
Kennet : Complete History of England. (London : 1706.) 
Guthrie : History of England. (London : 1747.) 
Sandford : Genealogical History of the Kings of England. 

(London: 1707.) 
TuRNOR : History of England during the Middle Ages. (1830.) 
LiNGARD : History of England. (1849.) 

Stubbs, Bishop : Constitutional History of England. (1880.) 
Wyije, J. H. : History of England under Henry IV. (1896.) 

„ Henry V. (1911.) 


Ramsay, Sir J, H. : Lancaster and York. (1892.) 
,, „ Genesis of Lancaster, (1913.) 

Oman, C. : Political History of England from 1377 to 1485. 
MowETT, R. B. : The Wars of the Roses. (1914.) 
Stevenson : Wars of the English in France. 
Barante : Histoire des Dues de Bourgogne. (1825.) 
QuiCHERAT : Rodrigue. (1879.) 



Baines : History of Lancashire. (1836.) 

Victorian County History of Lancashire. 

Chatham Society Publications. 

Surtees Society Publications. 

Camden Society Publications. 

Harleian Society PubUcations : Visitations, &c. 

Stow's London. (1707.) 

Croston : History of Samlesbury Hall. (1871.) 

Hunter : History of South Yorkshire. 

,, Familise Minorum Gentium (Harleian Society, 1894-6). 

Booker, Rev. J. : Memorials of Prestwich, and other works. 
Ormerod : History of Cheshire. 
Hasted : History of Kent. 
Blomefield : History of Norfolk. 

Dallaway and Cartwright : History of Western Sussex. 
Bray : History of Surrey. 
Polwhele : Devonshire. (1793.) 
Jones : Histor}^ of Denbighshire. 
Williams : History of Conway. 
Archseologia Cambrensis. 
Archseologia Cantiana. 
Pennant : Tour in Wales. (1778.) 
Prince, Joiin : Worthies of Devon. (1698.) 
Fuller : EngHsh Worthies. (Ed. 1811.) 

,, Warwickshire. 

Wm. F. Irvine : The Family of Hollands of Mobberley and 
Knutsford. (1902.) 



Other Works 

Burke : Peerage. 

,, Extinct Peerages. (1883.) 

,, Vicissitudes of Families. (1869.) 

„ Rise of Great Families. (1873.) 

,, Royal Families of England, &c. (1848.) 

Doyle : Baronage of England. (1886.) 
Metcalfe's Book of Knights. (1885.) 
DiJGDALE, Sir William : Baronage. 
,, ,, Monasticon. 

,, ,, Warwickshire. 

Rymer : FcBdera. 

Weever, John : Funeral Monuments. (London: 1631.) 
Beltz : Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, 1821. 
Fenn : Paston Letters. 
Calendar of Inquisitions fost mortem. 
Register of Papal Letters : Cal. State Papers. 
Berry : Genealogies. 

Rowland, David : Family of Nevill. (1830.) 
G. E. C. : Complete Peerage. (London : 1887-1898.) 

,, Complete Baronetage. (Exeter : 1900-1904.) 

Nichols : Progresses of Queen Elizabeth and of King James I. 

(Ed. 1828.) 
FoxE : Acts and Monuments. (Book of Martyrs.) 
Challoner, Bishop : Memoirs of Missionary Priests. (1742.) 
Foley : Records of the Enghsh Province of the Society of Jesus. 
GiLLOW : Biographical Dictionary of English Cathohcs. 
The Dictionary of National Biography. 
Dictionnaire de Biographic Universelle. 
Anthony A Wood : Athen. Oxon. (1692.) 


(The Names which are only given in Pedigree tables and are not also 
mentioned in the text, are not included in the Index.) 

Albemaele, Duke of. See York. 

Alencon, Duke of, 186 

Ambeticourt, Sir Sanchio, 26 

Anderton, James, 265 

Anderton, Lawrence, 265 

Anne, first Queen of Richard II, 53, 66 

Arundel, Agnes, Lady, 125 

Arundel, Alice Fitzalan of, Countess of 
Kent, 67, 124-5 

Arundel, Archbishop. See Canterbury 

Arundel, Countess of, 95 

Arundel, Sir John, 91 

Arundel, Richard Fitzalan, Earl of, 

55, 83, 109-15 
Arundel, Thomas, Earl of, 118, 134, 

143-7, 186, 189 
Arundel, Sir William, 125 
Ashburnham, Henrietta Maria, Coun- 
tess of, 14 
Ashburnham, John, 328 
Ashburnham, Lady Rlary, Viscountess 

Knutsford, 302 
Asheton, Richard, 244 
Ashurst, Thomas, 14 
Audley, Lord and Lady, 158, 207 
Aymer, Cardinal, 32 

Bacon, Lord, 38, 184, 196, 211 
Banastre, Sir Adam de, 7, 88 
Banastre, Sir Thomas de, 8, 12 
Banastre, Prior Thomas de, 12 
Barre, Jeanne de, Countess de War- 
renne, 17, 19 

Bath, Margaret de, 327 

Bath, Sir Walter de, 327 

Barlow, Edward, O.S.B., 264 

Barnaby, Prior John, 12 

Bavaria, Duke of, 125 

Bazvalen, Seigneur de, 44 

Beauchamp, John, Lord, 26 

Beaufort, Cardinal, 168, 174, 190-3, 196 

Beaufort, Joan, Countess of West- 
morland, 168 

Beaufort, Joan, Queen of Scotland, 
169, 17^5 

Beaufort, Margaret, Countess of 
Devon, 169 

Beaufort, Margaret, Countess of Rich- 
mond, 169-71 

Beaufort, Thomas, Duke of Exeter, 
168, 174, 183. 
And see Somerset 

Beaumont, Lord, 206, 228 

Beche, Margery de la, 12 

Bedford, John, Duke of, 187-9, 194-5 

Beltz, Mr., 55, 233 

Berden, Nicholas, 244 

Berkeley, Sir Thomas, 138 

Berry, Duke of, 54 

Blair, Major-General, 276 

Blount, Sir Thomas, 132, 136 

Bold, Anne, 296 

Bold, Ralph, 296 

Boniface IX, Pope, 93-5 

Bonner, Bishop, 241 

Booker, Rev. John, 292, 337, 340 

Boothe, Sir Thomas, 14 

Boteler, Lady de, 13 




Boucicault, Seigneur de, 88 

Bourbon, Duchess of, 217 

Bourbon, Isabella de, 218 

Bourchier, Lord, 30 

Bourchier, Sir John, 125 

Boyle, Charlotte, 322 

Brabant, Antoine, Duke of, 42 

Brabant, Philip, Duke of, 42 

Braddeston, Lady Blanche, 125 

Bradshaw, John, 275 

Bradshaw, Sir William, 8 

Braganza, Archbishop of, 71, 72 

Brember, Sir Nicholas, 85 

Brereton, Richard, 244 

Breze, Pierre, Seigneur de, 217 

Britland, Mrs., 282 

Brittany, John de Montfort, Duke of, 
43, 102, 125 

Bromflete, Henry, 168 
Buckingham, Earl of, 53, 55 
Buckingham, George VilUers, Duke of, 

Bungay, Friar, 227 
Burghurst, Lord, 26, 30 
Burgundy, Duke of (14th centiiry), 54 
Burgundy, Charles, Duke of, 218-24 
Burgundy, Philip, Duke of, 42, 190-3, 

Burke, Bernard, 36 
Burley, Sir Simon, 85, 111 
Burnet, Bishop, 246 
Bussell, William, 16 
Buxton, Charles, M.P., 303 
Buxton, Viscount, 303 
Byron, Lord, 277 
Byron, Sir John, 244 

CeUini, Benvenuto, 51 

Champernownes, Family of, 182 

Chandos, Sir John, 26, 30, 42, 46 

Charles I, King of England, 253, 328 

Charles VI, King of France, 43, 99 

Chastelain, George, 217 

Chaucer, Geoffrey, 86, 89, 91 

Chedsey, Bishop, 241 

Cholmondeley, Thomas, 282 

Churchill, Lord Randolph, 302 

Chyrche, Uchtred de, 2 

Clarence, George, Duke of, 221, 225, 227 

Clarence, Lionel, Duke of, 159, 210 

Clarence, Philippa of, 211 

Clarence, Thomas, Duke of, 171, 189 

Clarke, Jane, 309 

Clifford, Lord, 211, 213 

Clifford, Rosamond de, 5 

Clifford, Sir Thomas, 30 

Clifton, Sir John, 88 
Clynton, Sir William, 88 
Cobham, Sir John, 54 

Cobham, Reginald, Lord, 30 
Codling, Thomas, 180 

Collyer, John, 273 

Commines, Philip de, 219, 220, 223, 

225, 226, 233 
Cooke, Father, S.J., 263 
Corbie, Father Ambrose, 252, 263 
Cosen, John, 137 
Courtenay, Hugh, Lord, 26, 40 
Courtenay, Sir Peter, 125 
Coventry, Walter, Bishop of, 11 
Cragge, Prior Sir John, 288 
Cromwell, Oliver, 279 
Croston, James, viii, 11, 233, 340 

Cade, Hugh, 141 

Caldwell, Emma, 299 

Caldwell, James, 299 

Cambridge, Earl of, 47, 55, 165, 185 

Campion, Edmund, S.J., 244, 273 

Canning, George, 297 

Canterbury, Archbishops of : Bouchier, 

210 ; Courtenay, 83 ; Cranmer, 246 ; 

Fitzalan (Arundel), 38, 84, 112, 

130, 134, 152; Stratford, 21 ; 

Walden, 132 
Cary, Thomas, S.J., 253 
Cave, Six Ambrose, 290 

Daore, Earl of, 213 

Dalton, Sir Robert, 12 

Daniel, Pere, 41 

De Courcy, Lady, 125 

Delamere, Lord, 280 

Delaware, Lord, 30 

Denbigh, Earl of, 277, 326 

Derby, Charlotte, Countess of, 95 

Derby, Earl of. See Henry IV 

Derby, Stanleys, Earls of, 241, 274, 

276, 292 
Despenser, Lord, 111, 113, 117, 125, 

140, 146 



Despenser, Lady Constance, 126, 133, 

158, 160, 165 
De Trivet, Lady, 125 
Devon, Earl of, 213-14 
Digby, Kenelm Henry, 38 
Drummond of Hawthornden, 174 
Dudley, Lord, 207 
Dugdale, Sir William, 19, 150, 239 
Dutton, Sir Hugh de, 4 
Dynham, Sir John, 181 

Eam, Sir Henry, 26 

Edward I, King of England, 6, 42 

Edward II, 6, 7, 31 ;■ 

Edward III, 20, 25, 30, 34, 37 '•-, 

Edward IV, 210, 212, 217-31 

Edward, Prince of Wales (Black 

Prince), 26, 34-40, 46 
Edward, Prince of Wales, son of Henry 

VI, 204 
Egerton, Sir John,' 283 
Egerton, Peter, 275 
Egerton, Lord, of Tatton, 296 
Eleanor, Queen of Edward I, 42 
Elizabeth, Queen, 200, 246-51, 330 
Elmham, Thomas of, 198 j. , 
Erskine, Sir David, 306 
Erskine, Frances, 309 
Erskine, Lord Chancellor, 309 
Eu, Count of, 26 
Exeter, Anne, Duchess of 2nd Duke. 

See Montacute. 
Exeter, Anne, Duchess of 3rd Duke. 

See York. 
Exeter, Bishop of, 112 
Exeter, Dukes of. See Beaufort and 


Fabian, chronicler, 215, 229 
Fairfax, General Sir Thomas, 277 
Fere, Jean la, 191 
Fernando, Sir John, 77 
Fitz-Alan family. See Arundel 
Fitz Lewis, Sir John, 198 
Fitz Simon, Sir Richard, 26 
Fitz Walter, Lord, 129 
Flanders, Count of, 54 
Foxe, Jane, 336 

Foxe, John, 295, 336 

Froissart, John, 26, 30, 34, 35, 52, 85, 

- 89, 100, 103, 106, 119, 122-3, 149* 

r 152 

Froude, James A., 51, 249 

Fuller, Thomas, 316, 324 

Fytton, Thomas, 244 

Gage, Sir Henry, 256 

Gage, Thomas, 256 

Gaskell, Elizabeth, 300 

Gaskell, Rev. William, 300 

Gavcston, Piers, 7 

Gellibrand, John, 3 

Gellibrand, Juliana, 3 

Gifford, Dorothy, 300 

Gifford, Lord, 300 

Gloucester, Eleanor, Duchess of, 95, 

105-7, 116 
Gloucester, Richard, Duke of. See 

Richard III 
Gloucester, Thomas Plantagenet, Duke 

of, 83-5, 93, 95-112, 115-17 
Glover, Sir Tliomas, 316 
Glynn, WiUiam, 306 
Golofer, Sir John, 88 ; 
Gower, John, 151 
Grafton, Richard, 229 
Graham, Sir Robert, 175 
Gray, Lord, of Codmore, 26 
Grey, Sir Thomas, 185 
Grey de Ruthin, Lord, 153, 210 
Guelders, Duke of, 125 
Guthrie, Mr., 97 

Hale, Henry de, 3 
Hale, Thomas de, 9 
Hall, chronicler, 210, 215 
Hankford, Sir Richard, 198 
Harcourt, Sir Godfrej', 30 
Hastings, Lord, 224, 227 
Henry III, King of England, 5 
Henry IV, 54, 85, 86, 88, 94, 110, 117, 

120-4, 127-56, 160, 172, 215 
Henry V, 183-8 
Henry VI, 204, 210-15 
Henry VII, 169, 170, 175, 232 
Henry VIII, 170, 245-7 



Henry, King of Castile, 68, 80 
Hereford, Duke of. See Henry IV 
Hereford, Joan de Bohun, Countess of, 

Heywood, Oliver, 282 
Hibbert, Elizabeth, 302 
Hibbert, Nathaniel, 302 
Hindelaye, Adam de, 8 
Hinkley, John, 64 
Hobell, Thomas, 88 
Holinshed, chronicler, 48, 85, 87, 105-6, 

113, 120, 158 
Holland, Barons, of Upholland. Set 

* Holland ' below 
Holland, Abraham, 326 
Holland, Adam, of Upholland, 3, 238 
Holland, Alan, of Upholland, 16, 23, 

Holland, Alexander, of Sutton, 252 
HoUand, Alexander, of Sutton, S. J., 266 
Holland, Alianora, of Kent, Coimtess 

of March, 164 
Holland, Alice, of Clifton, 289 
Holland, Ameria, of Upholland, 4 
Holland, Anne, d. of 2nd Duke of 

Exeter, Lady Nevill, 197, 199 
Holland, Anne, d. of 3rd Duke of 

Exeter, 230 
Holland, Arthur, Sir, 300 
Holland, Brian, of Denton, 319 
Holland, Brian, of NTorfolk, 319, 326 
Holland, Bridget, Lady, of Kent, 164, 

Holland, Caroline, d. of Sir Henry 

Holland, 303 
Holland, Catharine, of Clifton, 289 
Holland, Catharine, of Quidenham, 

Holland, Constance, d. of 1st Duke of 

Exeter, Duchess of Norfolk, and the 

Lady Grey de Ruthin, 163, 182, 199, 

201, 202 
Holland, Edgar Swinton, ix 
Holland, Edmund, 4th Earl of Kent, 

157-162, 234 
Holland, Edmund, of Clifton, 289 
Holland, Edward, son of 1st Duke of 

Exeter, 180 
Holland, Edward, of Chorlton, 296, 337 
Holland, Edward, of Conway, 306, 307 
Holland, Edward, of Denton, 281 

Holland, Edward, of Denton (II), 283 
Holland, Edward, of Dumbleton, M.P., 

Holland, Edward, of Glossop, 323 
Holland, Edward, of Sutton, 267 
Holland, Eleanor, of Kent, Countess 

of Salisbury, 176-7 
Holland, Elias, of Upholland, 3 
Holland, Elizabeth, of Estovening, 

the ' Devilish Dame,' 2, 319w. 
Holland, Elizabeth, of Denton, Lady 

Egerton, 283 
Holland, Elizabeth, of Clifton, Lady de 

Trafford, 293 
Holland, Elizabeth, of Kent, Lady 

Nevill, 177 
Holland, Elizabeth, of Norfolk, 319 
Holland, Elizabeth, of Sandlebridge, 300 
Holland, Emily, Mrs. Charles Buxton, 

Holland, Frances, of Denton, 281 
Holland, Frances, of Denton, Lady 

Eyton, 282 
Holland, Francis James, Rev. Canon, 

Holland, Frederick, Rev., of Evesham, 

Holland, George, of Norfolk, 319 
Holland, George, of Dumbleton, 300 
Holland, Henry, 3rd Duke of Exeter, 

Holland, Henry, Sir, Baronet, M.D., 

Holland, Henry, son of Dr. Philemon, 

325-6, 330 
Holland, Henry, of Sutton, S.J., 264-6 
Holland, Henry Scott, Rev. Canon, 

D.D., 300-1 
Holland, Henry Thurstan, 1st Viscount 

Knutsford, 301-2 
Holland, Hugh, of Conway, 306 
Holland, Hugh, of Denbigh, 315-17 
Holland, Isabel, of Upholland, 16-21 
Holland, Jane, of Denton, Mrs. Chol- 

mondeley, 282 
HoUand, Joan, of Euxton, 16 
Holland, Joan, of Kent, Duchess of 

Brittany, 43-4 
HoUand, Joan, of Kent, Duchess of 

York, 125, 164-8 
Holland, Joan, of UphoUand, 4 



Holland, John, 1st Earl of Hunting- 
don and Duke of Exeter, 40, 47, 
62-66, 68-82, 87-95, 103-6, llo[ 
114, 117-19, 124-30, 131-5,141-9, 234 
Holland, John, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon 
and 2nd Duke of Exeter, 180-200, 234 
Holland, John, of Clifton, 289 
Holland, John, Rev., of Dunmow, 323 
HoUand, John, of Mobberley, 297 
Holland, John, of Norfolk, 319, 323 
Holland, John, Sir, of Quidenham, 

320-2, 326 
HoUand, John, Sir, of Quidenham (II), 

HoUand, John, of UphoUand, 16, 23, 

HoUand, Joseph, of Devonshire, 327 
HoUand, Katharine, of Quidenham, 

320 n. 
HoUand, Laurence, of Denton, 339 
HoUand, Margaret, of Kent, Countess 
of Somerset and Duchess of Clarence, 
125, 168-75, 233 
HoUand, Margaret, of UphoUand, 3, 7 
HoUand, Marion, of Clifton, 289 
Holland, Marjory, of UphoUand, 4 
Holland, Matthew, of UphoUand, 3 
Holland, Maud, of Kent, Countess of 

St. Pol, 40-3, 99, 154 
HoUand, Maud, of UphoUand, 14 
HoUand, Nicholas, Rev., 309 
HoUand, .Nicholas, of Clifton, 289 
Holland, Nicholas, of Deane HaU, 341 
HoUand, Otho, of Clifton (I), 285 
Holland, Otho, of Clifton (II), 289-90 
HoUand, Otho, Sir, of UphoUand, 16, 

21, 23, 234 
HoUand, Owen, of Conway, 305 
HoUand, Peter, of Clifton, 289 
HoUand, Peter, of Conway, 305 
HoUand, Peter, of Sandlebridge, 297, 

Holland, Philemon, Dr., 323-5 
HoUand, Ralph, of Clifton, 290 
HoUand, Richard, son of 1st Duke of 

Exeter, 180 
HoUand, Richard, Sir, of Denton, 273 
HoUand, Richard (II), of Denton, 273 
Holland, Richard (III), of Denton, 

Colonel, 274-82 
Holland, Richard, of Sutton, 3, 15, 267 

Holland, Richard, of Sutton, S.J., 267 
Holland, Richard, Sir, of UphoUand. 

9, 238 
HoUand, Robert, Ist Lord IloUand 

IloUand, Robert, 2nd Lord Holland, 

12, 14 
HoUand, Robert, of Clifton, 285-90 
Holland, Robert, of Euxton, 16 
Holland, Robert, of Sutton, 238 
HoUand, Robert, of Sutton (II), 242, 

HoUand, Robert, of UphoUand, 2, 3, 

Holland, Robert, Sir, of UphoUand, 4 
HoUand, Robert, Rev., 307 
Holland, Robert Martin, C.B., 299 
Holland, Roger, of Sutton, 239^2 
Holland, Roger, of UphoUand, 3 
Holland, Roger, of Wales, 312 
HoUand, Samuel, Rev., D.D., 309 
Holland, Samuel, of Liverpool, 300 
HoUand, Samuel, of Sandlebridge, 297 
Holland, Simon, 3 
HoUand, Swinton, 299 
Holland, Swinton, Admiral, 299 
HoUand, Sydney George, 2nd Viscount 

Knutsford, 302 
Holland, Thomas, 1st Earl of Kent, 

15, 16, 20, 25-35, 234 
Holland, Thomas, 2nd Earl of Kent, 

40, 45-7, 57, 66, 101, 234 
Holland, Thomas, 3rd Earl of Kent, 

and Duke of Surrey, 110-15, 117, 

118, 120, 125, 127, 129, 131-8, 

149-50, 234 
HoUand, Thomas, of Clifton, 291, 343 
Holland, Thomas, of CUfton (II), 293 
HoUand, Thomas, of Conway, 305 
HoUand, Thomas, of Denton, 282 
HoUand, Sir Thomas, of Estovening, 2, 

HoUand, Thomas, Dr., of Oxford, 

HoUand, Tliomas, Sir, of Quidenham, 

HoUand, Thomas, Colonel, of Quiden- 
ham, 322 
Holland, Thomas, of Sutton, S.J., 

HoUand, Thomas, Sir, of Wales, 312 
2 A 



Holland, Thomas Agar, Rev., 309 
Holland, Sir Thomas Erskine, K.C., 310 
Holland, Thurstar, Sir, of Denton, 

269-73, 285, 338-9 
Holland, Thurstan, Sir, of Upholland, 

2, 233, 237 
Holland, WiUiam, of Clifton (I), 273, 

285, 287 
Holland, William, of Clifton (II), 291, 

Holland, William, of Conway, 306 
Holland, William, Rev., of Denton, 283 
Holland, WiUiam, of Mobberley, 296, 

Holland, William, Sir, of Quidenham, 

Holland, William, of Rhodes (I), 291-5, 

336-40, 344 
Holland, William, of Rhodes (II), 295 
Holland, William, Sir, of Sharpies, 

Holland, William, Sir, of Upholland, 

7, 15, 269 
Holland, William, of Upholland, 4 
Hulme, Ellen, 296 
Hunter, Rev. Joseph, 339 
Huntingdon, Anne, Countess of. See, 

Huntingdon, Beatrice, Countess of. 

See Portugal 
Huntingdon, Earls of. See Holland 

Inqham, Sir Oliver de, 8 
Ireland, Sir Adam de, 4 
Ireland, Robert de Vere, Duke of, 83, 

Irvine, William F., ix, 294, 336 
Isabella, Queen of Edward II, 31 
Isabella, second Queen of Richard II, 

99, 100, 136 

Jacques, Seigneur, the ' Bastard,' 187 
James I, King of England, 315, 323, 330 
James I, King of Scotland, 169, 172-5 
James II, King of England, 97 
James II, King of Scotland, 175 
Jarret, Sir Thomas, 241 
Joan of Arc, 189 
Julian, Mother, 49 

Kellet, Adam de, 3 

Kempton, Master, 239 

Kent, Alice, Countess of. See Arundel 

Kent, Edmund Plantagenet, Earl of, 31 

Kent, Joan Plantagenet (Fair Maid), 

Kent, Joan, Countess of. ^ee Stafford 
Kent, Margaret, Countess of, 32 
Kent, Earls of. See Holland and 

Grey de Ruthin 
Kenyon, Adam de, 273 
Kenyon, Aimeria, 273 
Knutsford, Viscounts. See ' Holland ' 

Lancaster (Plantagenet), Blanche, 

Duchess of, 64, 181 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Catharine of, 

Queen of Castile, 69, 72, 82 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Constance, 

Duchess of, 65, 68 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Elizabeth of, 

Duchess of Exeter, 54, 64-6, 69 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Henry, 2nd 

Duke of. See Henry IV 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Henry, 2nd 

Earl of, 10, 26, 31, 372 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), John of Gaunt, 

Duke of, 46-7, 53-6, 68-82, 93, 95, 

99, 103, 110, 113 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Katharine do 

Swynford, Duchess of, 65, 95, 125, 

Lancaster (Plantagenet), Maud of. 

Countess of Stafford, 66 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Philippa of. 

Queen of Portugal, 65, 69, 71-3, 

82, 217 
Lancaster (Plantagenet), Thomas, 1st 

Earl of, 6-8, 18 
Langley, Ellen, 291 
Langley, Robert de, 289 
Langley, Sir Robert, 291 
Langley, Roger de, 287 
Langley, Thomas, 341 
Langley, Rev. William, 292 
Langton, Mr., 1 
Latimer, Friar, 54 
Latimer, Lord, 30 

Leicester, Robert Dudley, Earl of, 330 
L'isle, Gerard de, 12 
Lisle, John, Lord, 26 



London, Bishop of, 93 

Loring, Sir Nele, 26 

Louis XI, King of France, 218, 221 

Lovell, Sir John, 14 

Lovell, Viscount, 14 

Lyall, Rev. Alfred, 303 

Lyall, Sir Alfred, 303 

Lyall, Sir James, 303 

Lyall, Mary Sibylla, 303 

Lyndwood, William, 191 

MAOAxiLAy, Lord, 302 

Majorca, King of, 46 

Malory, Sir Thomas, 209 

Mansell, John, 2 

March, Edmund, Earl of, 164, 197 

March, Edward, Earl of. See Edward 

March, Roger de Mortimer, Earl of, 

26, 119, 164 
Margaret, Queen of Henry VI, 54, 204- 

Marmion, Sir John, 54 
Mary, Queen of Scots, 153, 171, 176 
Maudelyn, Richard, 116, 132 
Mauley, Lord, 30 
Medstead, Sir Andrew, 327 
Medfitead, Eleanor, 23, 327 
Mohun, Lady, 125 
Mohun, John, Lord, 26 
Molyneux, Agnes de, 258 
Molyneux, Sir Thomas de, 287 
Molyneux, Sir William de, 16 
Molyneux, William de, 46 
Monstrelet, Enguerrand de, 194 
Montacute, Lady Alice de, Coimtess of 

Westmorland, 177 
Montacute, Lady Anne of, Duchess of 

Exeter, 199, 201 
Montacute, William de, 32-5. And aee 

Montagu, Earl of, 217, 227 
Moreaux, Sir Thomas, 69-71, 77 
Mortimer, Anne, Countess of Cambridge, 

Mortimer, Eleanor, 164 
Mortimer, Lord, 31 
Mortimer, Roger, 164 

Neefoed, Maud de, 18, 20 

Nevill, Anne, Princess of Wales, 221 

Nevill, Cecily, Duchess of York, 178 

215, 225 
Nevill, I^)rd John, 177, 197 
Nevill, Sir John, 178, 197 
Nevill. See Wcstmorlund, Warwick, 

and Salisbury 
Newconie, Rev. Henry, 280 
Nicies, Sir, 57 

Norfolk, Howards, Dukes of, 214, 322 
Norfolk, Thomas de Mowbray, Duke of, 

83, 84, 89, 109, 113-17, 120-3 (first, 

Northumberland, Percy, Earls of, 60, 

125, 134, 194 
Nottingham, Earl of. See Norfolk 

Oman, Professor C, 210, 215 
Ostrevant, Count of, 93, 125 
Oxford, Earls of, 224. 227-8, 228 

Paeeley, Sir Walter, 26 

Parr, Miss, 294, 336 

Parr, Robert, 341 

Paston, John, 215, 218 

Paston, Lady Rebecca, 322 

Paston, William, 215 

Paul, John, 132 

Pedro, King of Castillc, 38, 46, 68, 93 

Peel, Sir Robert, 297 

Pell, Sir Anthony, 320 

Pembroke, Earl of, 55, 66 

Penthievre, Olivier de Blois, Count of, 

Percy, Sir Henry (Hotspur), 125-6 
Percy, Sir Thomas, 73, 77, 103. And 

see Northumberland 
Perez, Donna Agnese, 197 
Peyton, William, 325 
Philippa, Queen of Edward IH, 37, 

64, 200 
Picard, Peter, 17 
Pilkington, Sir John, 290 
Plantagenet family. Sec Edward, 

Henry, Richard, Lancaster, York, 

Pleasington, Joan de, 270 
Plympton, Prior of, 181 
Pomeraie {or Pomeray), Sir John and 

Lady, 181 



Pomeraie, Sir William, 182 
Poole, Geoffrey, 243 
Poole, Nehemiah, 280 
Pope, Alexander, 324 
Portugal, Beatrice of, 197 
Portugal, Infanta of, 217 
Portugal, John I, King of, 71, 74-8 
Pountchardon, Sir Richard de, 152 
Poyning, Lady, 125 
Poyning, Michael le, 12 
Prestwich, Margaret de, 287-9 
Prestwich, Thomas de, 287 
Prince, John, 327 
Prittlewell, John, 141 
Pynchebeke, Dr. John, 199 
Pynchebeke, Mr. Justice, 288 

QUICHERAT, M,, 195 n. 

Ramsay, Sir James, 229 

Redcliffe, Sir John de, 4 

RedcIifEe, Robert de, 270 

Richard II, King, 37, 47, 53, 62, 83-7, 

98-133, 152 
Richard III, King (Gloucester), 224, 

227, 231, 232 
Rickhill, William, 111 
Rigby, Alexander, 275 
Rivers, Lord, 224, 227 
Robert, The Hermit, 97 
Roos, Lord, 215 
Rosworm, Lt. -Colonel, 278 
Roye, Sir Reginald de, 73-8, 88-91 
Rupert, Prince, 276-8 
Rutson, Mrs., 43 

St. Legee, Anne, 230 

St. Leger, Sir Thomas, 229 

St. Pol, Constable of, 218 

St. Pol, Waleran, Count of, 40-1, 93, 

99, 154-6 
St. Pye, Seigneur de, 88 
Salisbury, John Montacute, Earl of, 

110, 119, 125, 132-40 
Salisbury, Richard Nevill, Earl of, 177 
Salisbury, Robert Cecil, Marquis of. 

Salisbury, Thomas, 176-7 
Salisbury, William Montacute, Earl 

of, 26, 32 

Samlesbury, Sir William de, 4 
Sandys of the Vine, Alathea, Lady, 320 
Sandys of the Vine, Lord, 320 
Sayer, William, 229 
Scott, WiUiam, 118 
Scrope, Lord, 111, 117, 168, 185 
Seaton, General Sir John, 276 
Shelley, Frances, 328 
Shelley,- Henry, 328 
Shelley, Sir Thomas, 141 
Shoresworth, Alexander de, 271 
Shoresworth, Margaret de, 269 
Shrewsbury, Earl of, 203 
Shuttleworth, Richard, 275 
Sigismund, Emperor, 186 

Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd 
Duke of, 169, i04-5 

Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke 
of, 169, 219-23, 228 

Somerset, Henry Beaufort, 2nd Earl of, 
169, 189 

Somerset, Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke 
of, 169, 211-16 

Somerset, John Beaufort, Ist Earl of, 
168-71 I 

Somerset, John Beaufort, 1st Duke of, 

And see ' Beaufort ' 

Southey, Robert, 214, 323 

Smith, Saba, Lady Holland, 303 

Smith, Rev. Sydney, 303 

Spencer, Lord de, 55 

Spencer, Sir Hugh, 93 ■ 

Stafford, Anne, Countess of Hunting- 
don, 197 

Stafford, Edmund, Earl of, 197 

Stafford, Hugh, Earl of, 30, 55-60 

Stafford, Joan, Countess of Kent, 101, 
124-5, 157 

Stafford, Sir Ralph de, 56-60, 197 

Stapleton, Sir Miles, 26 

Starkey, John, 275 

Steinulf of UphoIIand, 2 

Stevenson, Rev. William, 305 

Stewart, Sir James, 175 

Stewart, John, 189 

Stewart, Madalena, 309 

Stewart, Major Phillip, 309 

Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford, 48 

Studeley, John,' 205 

Suffolk, Earl of, 204 



Suffolk, Richard de la Pole, Earl of, 

Sutton, John de, 237 
Swinton, Anne, 297 
Swinton, John, 189 
Swinton, Peter, 297 

Talbot, Sir Edward, 4 
Tancarville, Count of, 27 
Tavistock, Abbot of, 181 
Taylor, Henry, 283 
Trafford, Sir Cecil, 293 
Trafford, Henry, 273, 286 
Trafford, Sir Humphrey, 293 ' 
Trafford, Marjory de, 273, 286, 339 
Tressilian, Chief Justice, 85 
Trevelyan, Sir Charles, 302 
Trevelyan, Margaret, Viscountess 

Knutsford, 302 
Tunstal, Bishop of Durham, 203 
Tyler, Wat, 47 

Vawr, Howell ap Rees, 307 
Vendome, Duke of, 258 
Vere. See Ireland 
Victoria, Queen, 297 
Villandrando, Rodrigue de, 194 
Visconti, Bemabo di, 159 
Visconti, Lucia di, Countess of Kent, 

Wagstaffe, Master, 289 

Wale, Sir Thomas, 26 

Walsingham, Thomas of, 17, 53, 54, 138 

Walthew, John, 9 

Warignies, Robert de, 27 

Wane, John de, 4 

Warren, Anne, 281 

Warren, Edward, 281 

Warrenne, Alice de, 21 

Warreime, Earl de, 16-21 

Warrenne, William de, 20 

Warwick, Richard Nevill, Earl of 

(' King-maker '), 177, 204-10, 221-8 
Warwick, Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl 

of, 26, 30, 83, 104, 116 
Wavrin, John de, 52, 127, 137, 143, 198 
Wedgewood, Catherine, 297 
Wedgewood, Josiah, 297 

Wccvcr, John, 147 

Wcrdcn, Alice Orskoll, 201, 337, 342-3 
Westminster, Abbot of, 132 
Westmorland, Ralph Nevill, Earl of, 

177, 184 
Westmorland, Ralph Nevill, 3rd Earl, 

206, 228 
Williams, Rev. Hugh, 306 
Williams, Jane, 300 
Williams, R., 305 
Williams, William, 306 
Willoughby, Sir Rothcrem, 320 
Willoughby, Sir William, 167 
Wilton, Earls of, 283 
Wiltshire, Earl of, 125-7 
Windham, Sir Edmund, 320 
Windham, Mary, 320 
Windsor, Sir William, 77 
Wolveley, Alice de, 287 
Woodville, Sir Thomas, 230 
Worcester, Earl of, 125 
Wrottesley, Sir Thomas, 26 
Wykeham, William de. Bishop of 

Winchester, 83 
Wylie, Mr., 132-40 
Wyther, Sir Thomas, 10 

Yarmotjth, Earl of, 322 

York, John Kemp, Archbishop of, 191 

York (Plantagenet), Anne of, Duchess 

of Exeter, 203, 225, 229 
Y^rk (Plantagenet), Edward (of 

Langley), Duke of, 83, 93, 95, 103, 

110, 125, 127, 134, 166-7 
York (Plantagenet), Edward, 2nd Duke 

of, 99, 117, 120, 125-7, 132-4, 146, 

York (Plantagenet), Edward, 4th Duke 

of. See Edward IV 
York (Plantagenet), Margaret of. 

Duchess of Burgundy, 218, 225 
York (Plantagenet), Richard, 3rd Duke 

of, 205, 210-11 

And see Cambridge, Clarence, 

ZoucHE, Alan, Lord de la, 5 
Zouche, Maud de la, Lady Holland, 6, 




Recent Notable Biographies. 


Bart. Begun by STEPHEN GWYNN, M.P. Completed 
and Edited by GERTRUDE M. TUCKWELL, Literary 
Executrix of Sir Charles Dilke. Two Volumes. With 
Portraits and Illustrations. 36s. net. 



Principal of Manchester College, Oxford. Two Volumes. 
With Portraits and Illustrations. 15s. net. 


With Illustrations. 

BASIL WILBERFORCE, D.D., Archdeacon of West- 
minster. A Memoir. 

By the Rt. Hon. GEORGE W. E. RUSSELL. 


K.C.B. With Portraits and Illustrations. 15s. net. 


By her Brother, ARTHUR C. BENSON, C.V.O. LL.D., 
Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. With Portraits 
and Illustrations. 7s. 6d. net. 


By CHARLES T. GATTY. With Illustrations. 7s. 6d. net. 
This book is-as the title suggests-an attempt to recall some of the 
phases of a very remarkable character, by one who was thrown much in 
his company. 


Granville). ^ ^ ttj. j 
Private Correspondence between the years 1781-1821. Edited 
bv his Daughter-in-law, Castalia. Countess Granville. Second 
Impression Two Volumes. With Portraits and Illustrations. 
Demy 8vo. 32s. net. 


Recent Notable Biographies. 


CM., G.C.S.I. By LEONARD HUXLEY. Two Volumes. 
With Illustrations. 


By SIR WILLIAM P. TRELOAR, Bart. With Illustra- 
tions. I2S. net. 


tions from Neville G. Lyttelton and John Murray. Second 
Impression. With Illustrations. 9s. net. 


7s. 6d. net. 

MONCRIEFF, K.C.SJ., K.C.M.G., LL.D., etc., 

1836-1916. Edited by his Niece, Miss MARY A. HOLLINGS. 
With Illustrations. 12s. net. 


i2s. net. 


M.A., D.D. As portrayed by his Letters and Illustrated by 
Photographs. Edited by his WIFE, with a Preface by the 
Bishop of Oxford, and a Chapter by the Rev. Wilfrid Richmond, 
los. 6d. net. 


His Life, Works and Influence. By GEORGE McLEAN 
HARPER, Professor of the English Language and Literature 
at Princeton University. Two Volumes. With Illustrations. 
Demy 8vo. 24s. net. 

DAVID GILL : Man and Astronomer. 

Memories of Sir David Gill, K.C.B., H.M. Astronomer (1879- 
1907) at the Cape of Good Hope. Collected and arranged by 
GEORGE FORBES, F.R.S. With Portraits and Illustra- 
tions. Demy 8vo. 12s. net.